Condonation of Interruption in Service – Legal Battle Resolved

In a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India, the legal battle surrounding the condonation of interruption in service has been finally resolved. The case involved pension benefits and set crucial guidelines for similar situations in Haryana. The judgment will have far-reaching implications in ensuring fairness and clarity in matters of service interruptions and pension entitlements.


  • The appellant was initially appointed by the Board of School Education, Haryana, Bhiwani on 08.05.1970 as a Proof Reader.
  • The appellant retired on 31.05.2002.
  • The appellant voluntarily retired on 01.02.1988 due to family circumstances.
  • The appellant filed a representation to the Education Minister of Haryana, seeking re-appointment on humanitarian grounds.
  • The Education Minister recommended consideration of the appellant’s case for re-appointment.
  • The Board resolved on 31.05.1994 to reappoint the appellant afresh.
  • The past service of the appellant was considered for the purpose of pension and seniority.
  • A period from 02.02.1988 to 02.08.1994 was condoned as leave without pay for continuity of service for pension and seniority purposes.
  • There were ongoing discussions and correspondence regarding granting the benefit of past service to the appellant.
  • The appellant’s representation for pension and other benefits of service was initially rejected by the Single Judge.
  • Various authorities were consulted for clarification on the rules regarding condonation of service interruption.
  • The appellant filed an appeal against the Single Judge’s decision, which was later dismissed by the High Court on 21.05.2015.
  • Rule 4.23 states that if the break in service is due to resignation, dismissal, or removal, the period of interruption cannot be condoned
  • The Learned Single Judge emphasized the importance of adhering to Rule 4.23
  • Resignation, dismissal, or removal were highlighted as reasons for which condonation of interruption of service cannot be allowed

Also Read: Interpretation of Lease Agreement and Compulsory Registration


  • The appellant had passed a resolution for condonation of a period that could not be legally reviewed after five years.
  • The appellant deposited gratuity, provident fund, and leave encashment amount received at the time of voluntary retirement.
  • The appellant claimed the benefit of Rule 4.23 of PCSR for adding the interruption period in computing the pension.
  • The State refuted the appellant’s claim by stating that Rule 4.23 is not applicable in Haryana.
  • The State pointed out that Rule 4.23 sub-rule (3) specifies a maximum interruption duration of one year, which is exceeded in the appellant’s case.
  • The appellant argued that under Rule 4.23, interruption due to resignation does not apply to voluntary retirement.
  • The appellant claimed automatic condonation of interruption between 02.02.1988 till 02.08.1994 due to voluntary retirement.
  • Appellant accepted voluntary retirement on 01.02.1988
  • Appellant rejoined on 03.08.1994 as a fresh appointment
  • Earlier period cannot be added for the purpose of pension

Also Read: Legal Interpretation in Light of Section 148 of NI Act: Revisiting Appellants’ Case


  • Letter dated 05.12.1994 based on Rule 4.22 mentioned that the break in service of the appellant can only be treated as leave without pay for seniority and pension purposes.
  • Subsequent correspondences with the Board and Government made it clear that Rule 4.23 was the relevant rule applicable in the State of Haryana, and the request for relaxation from Rule 4.23 was not granted by the Government.
  • The Board passed a resolution on 31.03.1995 to add the interrupted service period subject to depositing certain funds, but the amount was not accepted initially due to audit objections.
  • Letter dated 24.08.2000 directed obtaining relaxation in Rule 4.23 as the appellant’s case for condonation was not covered by Rule 4.23.
  • The Government declined to grant relaxation in Rule 4.23 as communicated by the Director of Secondary Education Haryana.
  • The service rules applicable in the State of Haryana were cited, specifically Rules 4.22 and 4.23, which set the conditions for condonation of interrupted service.
  • The interruption should not exceed one year’s duration according to Rule 4.23.
  • The appellant’s claim for pensionary benefits based on the interruption was not accepted by the Government due to lack of condonation under Rule 4.23.
  • The relaxation from Rule 4.23 requested by the appellant was not granted by the Government as per the communication dated 24.08.2001.
  • The book containing the relevant rules of Punjab Civil Services as applicable in Haryana was produced by the State counsel, confirming the rules related to interruptions in service.
  • Interruptions in service can be condoned under certain conditions
  • Interruptions should have been caused by reasons beyond the control of the Government employee
  • Authority sanctioning pension can retrospectively commute periods of absence without leave into leave without allowances or extraordinary leave
  • The petitioner’s case was found not covered by Rule 4.23 as per the judgment.
  • Rule 4.23 of PCS Rules in Haryana deals with the condonation of interruption in service.
  • Conditions for condonation of interruption in service include interruption beyond the control of the employee, preceding service of not less than five years, and interruption not exceeding one year.
  • The total period of interruptions to be condoned should not exceed one year in cases of multiple interruptions.
  • A related case, Subedar Harpal Singh, Retd. vs. State of Haryana, was referenced in the judgment.
  • The Statute does not permit condonation of interruption of period from 02.02.1988 to 02.08.1994
  • The proposal for granting relaxation in Rule 4.23 was refused
  • Decision of the respondent refusing to grant the benefit of condonation by adding the earlier period was not faulty
  • Appellant’s period after fresh appointment from 03.08.1994 was less than the qualifying service of 10 years
  • Appellant is not entitled to pension

Also Read: Enhancing Compensation and Modifying Sentences: A Legal Analysis


  • Dismissal of the writ petition is to be sustained
  • Dismissal based on the reasons given above
  • The appeal has been dismissed


Case Number: C.A. No.-009682 / 2019

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *