Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Proportionate Pension to Employee Who Resigned After 13 Years of Unblemished Service Due to Family Circumstances

Case Name: Pankaj Mehta v. Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh and Another

Date of Judgment: 25 May 2026

Citation: CWP-21475-2021

Bench: Justice Kuldeep Tiwari

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that resignation tendered by a government employee after long and unblemished service due to compelling family circumstances does not automatically disentitle the employee from proportionate pension and retiral benefits. The Court clarified that Rule 4.19(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules applies only where resignation is tendered to avoid dismissal, removal or misconduct proceedings and cannot be invoked against employees resigning for genuine domestic reasons.

Summary: The petitioner challenged the order dated 02.07.2021 whereby his request for grant of proportionate pension and other retiral benefits was rejected by relying upon Rule 4.19(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, now corresponding to Rule 21 of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016.

The petitioner had been appointed as a Steno Typist in 1999 against a regular post under the District and Sessions Judge. After rendering approximately 13 years of service, he tendered resignation on 01.10.2012 owing to compelling family circumstances, which was accepted by the competent authority. Subsequently, he sought proportionate retiral benefits including pension and gratuity.

The respondents rejected the claim contending that resignation from public service resulted in forfeiture of past service under Rule 4.19(a) and therefore disentitled the petitioner from pensionary benefits. It was also argued that Rule 6.16(2) relating to proportionate pension applied only in cases of retirement and not resignation.

The petitioner contended that Rule 4.19(a) applies only where resignation is submitted to avoid dismissal or removal on grounds such as misconduct, anti-national activities, insolvency or inefficiency. Since no disciplinary proceedings were ever initiated or contemplated against him and he maintained an unblemished service record, the provision could not be invoked to deny pensionary benefits.

The High Court undertook a detailed interpretation of Rule 4.19(a) and noted that the provision primarily deals with resignation or removal linked to misconduct and other penal consequences. The Court observed that the intent behind the rule was to prevent employees from escaping disciplinary proceedings by tendering resignation and not to penalize employees resigning for bona fide domestic reasons.

Relying extensively upon earlier decisions including Haryana State through Collector, District Bhiwani v. Madan Pal Ahlawat and Om Parkash v. Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, the Court reiterated that employees resigning after rendering more than ten years of service for domestic reasons remain entitled to proportionate pension under Rule 6.16(2).

The Court distinguished the Supreme Court judgment in BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. v. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma observing that the said decision was based upon Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972, which specifically provided forfeiture of service upon resignation. The High Court noted that no such explicit provision existed under the applicable Haryana Rules when the petitioner resigned in 2012 and the subsequently introduced Rule 21 of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 could not be applied retrospectively.

The Court further observed that the petitioner had rendered 13 years of blemish-free service and no disciplinary proceedings were ever initiated or contemplated against him. Adopting what it termed a “pragmatic rather than hyper-technical approach,” the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to proportionate pension and consequential retiral benefits under Rule 6.16(2).

Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order rejecting pensionary benefits. The respondents were directed to grant proportionate pension and other consequential retiral benefits to the petitioner in proportion to the service rendered by him within four months. However, no interest on arrears was awarded as the petitioner had approached for pensionary benefits after considerable delay.