JUDGMENT
D.P. Singh, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Zila Panchayat Inter College, Chandauli is a duly recognized and aided intermediate college where the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in History on 16.9.1978 in substantive capacity. Initially, due to ill health she went on earned leave in October 1992 and thereafter continued on medical leave but, thereafter, as she could not carry out her duties due to her medical condition, she resigned from service w.e.f. 1.3.1995 after completing more than 16 years of service. She claimed pension, gratuity and other amounts through various representations evoking no response, forcing her to file Writ Petition No. 25229 of 2001 which was finally disposed off vide order dated 13.7.2001 with a direction to the respondent to decide the claim of the petitioner. In pursuance thereof, provident fund was released to her on 5.3.2002 but without any interest. However, with regard to pension, gratuity and leave salary, the claim was rejected by the impugned order dated 14.3.2002 on the ground that she had not completed the qualifying service for pension and gratuity. Thus, the petition.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that under Rule 17 read with Rule 21 of Uttar Pradesh Contributory Provident Fund Insurance Pension Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) she is entitled to grant of retiral benefit. There is no denial by the state respondents that these rules are in vogue and apply to the petitioner. However, it is contended that since the petitioner had resigned and did not retire, thus she is not entitled to pension. It would be appropriate to consider Rule 17, which is as under:
An employee shall be eligible for pension on-
(i) retirement on attaining the age of superannuation or on the expiry of extension granted beyond the superannuation age;
(ii) voluntary retirement after completing 25 years of qualifying services;
(iii) retirement before the age of superannuation under a medical certificate of permanent incapacity for further service; and
(iv) discharge due to abolition of post or closure of an institution due to withdrawal of recognition or other valid causes.
4. It is apparent that Rule 17(iii) contemplates retirement due to medical incapacity to work even before the age of superannuation. Further, Rule 21 prescribes the eligibility for receiving invalid pension. It would also be useful to take note of Rule 21, which is quoted below:
An employee shall be eligible for superannuation/retiring/invalid pension only after completing 10 years of qualifying service at 1/20 of his average emoluments of past three years for every completed years of service subject to the maximum of 30/120 of such emoluments or the maximum fixed for the purpose, whichever is less.
Thus, it is evident that if a person has completed 10 years of service and retired before the age of superannuation due to medical incapacity to work further, would be entitled to invalid pension as mentioned in Rule 21.
5. However, learned Standing Counsel has contended that the Rule contemplates retirement and not resignation.
6. The word ‘retirement’ has not been defined in the rules. In service law, ‘retirement’ commonly denotes cessation from employment on attaining the age of superannuation. The word has been defined in Webster’s Dictionary as “to give up active participation in a business or other occupation. ” Rule 33 provides the only exclusion from the operation of the Rules in the following words:
No pension/family pension shall be granted if the employee was dismissed or removed from service for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency.
A resignation is a genere of retirement and has been used in that sense in these Rules. Reading the three provisions together leads to the only conclusion that cessation of employment through resignation is not excluded from the operation of the Rules and the word as has been used in the Rules to connote cessation of active occupation, but does not mean retirement in the trict sense in which it is understood normally n service law. None of the respondents have denied that the petitioner resigned from service after completion of 10 years of ontinuous service on medical grounds. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is covered under Rule 17 (iii) read with Rule 21 which postulates invalid pension after completion of 10 years of service.
7. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel that since the petitioner had not completed 20 years of service is, therefore, not entitled for pension, cannot be accepted. Purposely the pension granted under Rule 21 has been kept much less than the pension granted after retirement on attaining the age of superannuation under the other provisions of the Rules. The Government order dated 24.6.1983 does not deal with invalid pension, and rightly so, because provision for it had already been made in the Rules and relates to voluntary retirement. Thus, the Government order dated 24.6.1983 is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, as already observed hereinabove, the petitioner was entitled to invalid pension under Rule 21 read with Rule 17(iii) as the cessation of employment was on medical incapacity after completing 10 years of service. To that extent the impugned order cannot be sustained.
8. It is then urged on behalf of the petitioner that no amounts have been paid for the admissible medical leave even though all the documents were duly completed and forwarded by the Principal to the Authorities. Specific averments have been made in the writ petition to the aforesaid effect but neither the management nor the State has denied those allegations, The petitioner was a regular substantive appointee and was entitled to medical and earned leave as provided for under the relevant Rules and, therefore, a reasoned decision ought to have been taken, but the claim has been rejected without any valid reason. The respondent No. 1 would again apply his mind to the grant of medical leave, earned leave and if the petitioner is found eligible, the payments should be made under those heads after taking a reasoned decision within six weeks of the submission of the certified copy of this order.
9. Lastly, it is urged that the respondents withheld his provident fund and paid a sum of Rs. 73979/- without including the interest from March 1997 to February 2002. If that be so, the petitioner is entitled to the interest on the provident fund payable to the petitioner.
10. For the reasons given above, this petition succeeds to the extent hereinabove and is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.3.2002 is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.