Surinder Nath Kesar v. Board of School Education & Ors.
Background
The appellant, a government employee (Proof Reader) with the Haryana Board of School Education, voluntarily retired in 1988 but was later reappointed in 1994 on humanitarian grounds following a ministerial recommendation. He sought to have the roughly six-and-a-half-year gap between his retirement and reappointment "condoned" (treated as continuous service) so that his pension would be calculated using his full original service period. The Board and various government departments gave inconsistent signals over the years, sometimes appearing to approve the condonation, sometimes referring to the wrong rule, before ultimately refusing to add the interruption period, leading to writ petitions and appeals that were dismissed by both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court found that both lower courts had actually applied the wrong version of the relevant pension rule (Rule 4.23), since the rule applicable in Haryana, verified from the official gazette produced during the hearing, only allowed condonation of a break in service of up to one year, not six-plus years. Since the appellant's gap far exceeded this limit, and the government had formally declined to grant any special relaxation of the rule when asked, the Court held there was no legal basis to condone the interruption or add it to his qualifying service for pension. The dismissal of the appellant's case was upheld, though on the correct legal reasoning rather than the reasoning used by the High Court, and the appeal was dismissed.
Lesson Learnt
Pension and service-continuity benefits depend on the exact wording of the applicable rules (which can vary by state), and a break in government service beyond the rule's specified limit cannot be bridged for pension purposes merely because an employer's resolution or informal correspondence suggested otherwise: a formal, authorized relaxation is required.