@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.@mdashIn this writ petition, original Petitioner has claimed for retirement benefits, such as pension, gratuity, group insurance, provident fund, leave encashment for unutilised earned leave with consequential benefits.
2. Original Petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Sanskrit teacher in the aided S.S. High School, Panchrukhia in the district of Bhojpur in the year 1956 and worked there till 22.9.1975. According to the Petitioner the said School was under Bihar Sanskrit Associate Bihar, later converted to Board of Sanskrit Education Bihar vide Government notification No. 323 dated 24.1.1961. Thereafter, the Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Sanskrit Sahitya in Sidheshwari Sanskrit College, Panchrukhiya and worked on that post till he superannuated on 7.7.1983 after attaining the age of 62 years. It is claimed by the Petitioner that he is entitled for payment of pension, gratuity, provident fund and other retirement benefits under the provisions laid down in the Statute as approved by the Chancellor vide letter No. BSU/52/80-5285GS (i) dated 18.11.1980 as amended by letter No. BSU/52/80/2158 GS(i) dated 25.11.1982 which came into force on 1.4.1972.
3. Original Petitioner Kailash Mishra died intestate on 25.7.2000 and an appilcation for substitution was filed by his son Deo Krishna Mishra, which was allowed and he was substituted in place of the original Petitioner vide order dated 7.11.2000.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Vice Chancellor of Sir Kameshwar Singh Sanskrit University, Darbhanga (Respondent No. 2). It is admitted that father of the Petitioner was temporarily appointed as Sahitya Lecturer in Sidheshwari Sanskrit College, Panchrukhia on 23.9.1975 which was affiliated college and subsequently the College became constituent in 1982. It is further submitted that father of the Petitioner submitted his wilful resignation letter to the Principal of the College on 17.2.1983 and the same was sent to the University on 20.2.1983, a photostat copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure-A. It is further stated that on the post of Sahitya Lecturer one Murari Mishra was appointed and the University has granted temporary approval from 17.2.1983 to 30.6.1983. A copy of the said approval has been annexed as Annexure-B. The claim about superannuation of the deceased father has been denied and it is reiterated that he submitted his wilful resignation on 17.2.1983. According to the said Respondent the original Petitioner has not completed minimum 10 years of qualifying service to be eligible for pensionary benefits as per the statute. Further, it is stated that the Incharge Principal of the College was requested to send all the papers of the original Petitioner regarding his retirement benefits so that any decision may be taken, but, no paper was sent to the University. It is further stated that the Petitioner has also not submitted any relevant papers with respect to the retirement benefit of the deceased such as leave chart, pension form, no objection certificate verified and signed by the Principal of the College. According to the Respondent, earlier appointed claimed by the deceased during the period 1956 up to 22.9.1975 was not in a recognized Sanskrit School, and, thus, not eligible for pensionary benefits.
5. A reply affidavit has been filed in which it is stated that the Petitioner''s father never sent resignation to the University. However, the genuineness of the letter contained in Annexure-A has not been disputed, but, according to the Petitioner it is not a resignation letter. It is stated that all the relevant papers as per knowledge of the Petitioner has been submitted to the authority and the Principal of the concerned College by his father.
6. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 in which it is reiterated that the original Petitioner is not entitled to pension because his period of qualifying service rendered in the College is only seven years. It is further stated that the privilege for granting gratuity to the original Petitioner is practically barred by Section 3 and Sub-Section 19 of the Statute of 1987, wherein it is clarified that no gratuity shall be payable on resignation from service of the University or dismissal or inefficiency not due to age. According to the Respondents, the provident fund is also barred by letter of implementation of the provident fund for Lecturer signed by the Registrar in the U.G.C. scale of pay i.e. Rs. 700-1600/- from 1.4.1983. So far as leave encashment is concerned, according to the Respondents, the same is not admissible as service of the Petitioner was not regularised and not approved by the University.
7. The main issue involved in the present case is as to whether the deceased father of the Petitioner tendered his resignation vide Annexure-A. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner his deceased father vide Annexure-A simply wanted to be relieved of work and not that he resigned. I am unable to accept the said submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Annexure-A, the genuineness of which has not been disputed shows that the deceased wanted to be relieved and he did not want any pension. Thus, it is obvious that the deceased vide Annexure-A resigned from the service. Now the only question remains is as to whether the resignation will entail forfeiture of past service rendered by the deceased and consequently not entitled for retiral benefits of the said service.
8. On the said question this Court heard another writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 1678 of 2003 and the order in the said case was reserved. Thus, in the present case also vide order dated 3.9.2003 the order was reserved for disposal along with, C.W.J.C. No. 1678 of 2003.
9. In the case of
I, therefore, hold that the resignation from service as mentioned under Article 12(1) of the University Statute relating to General Condition of Service, equivalent to Rule 101(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules entails forfeiture of past service only in such cases where resignation is given for misconduct, insolvency, inefficiency not due to age, or failure to pass a prescribed examination, as laid down under the provision aforesaid. The aforesaid rule is not applicable in the case of resignation simplicitor, though may be applicable in a case where on receipt of allegation or charge sheet and other criteria mentioned ''under the rule, a person submits resignation.
10. In C.W.J.C. No. 1678 of 2003 this Court while considering similar provision contained in Rule 101(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules has held that resignation entails forfeiture of past service only in the case of misconduct, insolvency and inefficiency not due to age or failure to pass a prescribed examination or on receipt of allegation or charge sheet and not in the case of resignation simplicitor.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the Vice Chancellor (Respondent No. 2) to re-examine the claim of the Petitioner relating to the remaining retiral benefits, such as, pension, gratuity, leave encashment, group insurance etc. by counting his service before acceptance of resignation and dispose it of by a reasoned order and the amount in that regard found payable must be paid to the Petitioner within two weeks. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
