[2025:RJ-JP:45849-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 479/2024 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.314/2024 Sunil Kumar S/o Jawahar Lal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village- Bhankhari, Tehsil- Narnaul, District Mahendragarh (Haryana). ----Appellant Versus 1. Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner. 3. District Education Officer (Secondary), Jhunjhunu. 4. Principal, Govt. Se. Sec. School, Mandri, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Dr. Mithlesh Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG assisted by Mr. S.M. Sharma & Mr. Karni Singh HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 14/11/2025 1. The appellant-writ petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19.03.2024, whereby he was unsuccessful in the claim set up by him for grant of pensionary benefits and gratuity amount. 2. Brief facts which are on record are that the appellant-writ petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on 10.10.2001, on compassionate ground. While the respondents [2025:RJ-JP:45849-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-479/2024] have raised a dispute about his status being of temporary nature, the appellant has pointed out that he had already been confirmed on the post. We need not dwell on the said issue for the purpose of claim as set up by the appellant-writ petitioner. 3. It is an admitted position that after having worked for about eleven years, the appellant submitted resignation voluntarily, which was accepted on 24.09.2012 by the District Education Officer (Secondary), Jhunjhunu with effect from the same date. No challenge was made to the order of 24.09.2012. In fact, the appellant-writ petitioner had happily accepted the said order and it is only in the year 2024 that he reverted back before this Court claiming pension and gratuity amount on the basis of his service rendered with the State from 10.10.2001 upto 24.09.2012. 4. A look at the Provisions of Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short ‘Rules of 1996’) reflects that resignation under Rule 25(1) of the Rules of 1996 would show as under:- “25. Forfeiture of service on resignation: (1) Resignation from a service or a post, entails forfeiture of past service.” 5. Thus, a person who has resigned from service would forfeit his past service. Forfeiture of past service under Rule 25(1) of the Rules of 1996 is not under challenge before us. The necessary corollary of forfeiture of service would entail non-payment of pension or gratuity as the pension is based on the qualifying service rendered by a person, while gratuity is calculated on the basis of the service rendered by person. [2025:RJ-JP:45849-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-479/2024] 6. Since the appellant-writ petitioner's entire service stands forfeited in terms of Rule 25(1) of the Rules of 1996, no claim for gratuity or pension can be said to be made out in his favour. 7. We, therefore, find that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference. The present Special Appeal (Writ) is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ MAHIMA /12