9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant on two grounds. First, that he had not completed twenty years of service, making him ineligible for the grant of pension. Second, in any case, by resigning, the first respondent had forfeited his past services and therefore could not claim pensionary benefits. 3. The second question of whether by resigning, the first respondent forfeited his past service must be addressed at the outset. If the first respondent's resignation resulted in a forfeiture of past service, the question of whether he has completed twenty years of service is rendered irrelevant for such service would stand forfeited. In holding the that the legal effect of the first respondent's letter of resignation would amount to 'voluntary resignation', the Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi relied on the judgement of this Court in Asger Ibrahim Amin v LIC [2016] 13 SCC 797. 4. In Asger Ibrahim Amin, the appellant had resigned in 1991 after completing twenty-three years of service with the Life Insurance Corporation of India. When the appellant resigned, there existed no provision allowing for voluntary retirement. The Central Government subsequently promulgated the Life Insurance Corporation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e time of his resignation there was no provision for voluntary retirement, the Court held that the appellant had in fact 'voluntarily retired' and not 'resigned'. The LIC Pension Rules only made the provisions on retirement applicable retrospectively and did not make the provisions with respect to voluntary retirement applicable retrospectively. However, in holding that the court must determine whether there existed a case for 'voluntary retirement' or 'resignation', the effect of the decision was to apply the provisions on voluntary retirement retrospectively. The Court Vikramajit Sen expressly noted this: "11. ... The respondent Corporation has controverted the plea of the appellant that as the relevant date and time viz. 29-1-1991 there was no alternative for him except to tender his resignation, pointing out that he could not have sought voluntary retirement under Regulation 19(2-A) of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. If that be so, the respondent being a model employer could and should have extended the advantage of these Regulations to the appellant thereby safeguarding his pension entitlement. However, we find no substance in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egulations or rules or the scheme. Rule 23 of the 1995 Rules specifically provides that on resignation, dismissal, removal, termination or compulsory retirement, the employee shall forfeit past service and he shall not qualify for pensionary benefit. Thus, resignation given under the 1995 Rules would not entitle an employee to get pension. 29. ... In Asger Ibrahim Amin, retrospectivity has been given to Rule 31 [Pension on voluntary retirement], and for the said purpose the amendment to the 1960 Regulations, specifically Regulation 19(2-A) has been taken recourse to. In our view, when Rule 31 covers the field of voluntary retirement and does not make it retrospective, there being a real difference between resignation and retirement, it is not seemly to read the amended Regulations to the Rules to make the same retrospective. Therefore, we are unable to concur with the view expressed in /Asger Ibrahim Amin." (Emphasis supplied) 9. The court in Shree Lal Meena I took the view that the provision with respect to pension on voluntary retirement (Rule 31) was not applicable retrospectively because the relevant provision had not been enacted with retrospective effect. Crucially, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms: "22. ... [quoting RBI v Cecil Dennis Solomon (2004) 9 SCC 461] In service jurisprudence, the expressions "superannuation", "voluntary retirement", "compulsory retirement" and "resignation" convey different connotations. Voluntary retirement and resignation involve voluntary acts on the part of the employee to leave service. Though both involve voluntary acts, they operate differently. One of the basic distinctions is that in case of resignation it can be tendered at any time, but in the case of voluntary retirement, it can only be sought for after rendering the prescribed period of qualifying service. Another fundamental distinction is that in case of the former, normally retiral benefits are denied but in case of the latter, the same is not denied. In case of the former, permission or notice is not mandated, while in the case of the latter, permission of the employer concerned is a requisite condition. Though resignation is a bilateral concept, and becomes effective on acceptance by the competent authority, yet the general rule can be displaced by express provisions to the contrary." The above observations highlighted the material distinction between the concept of resig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he requisite years of service to apply for voluntary retirement, his was a decision to resign and not a decision to seek voluntary retirement. If this court were to re-classify his resignation as a case of voluntary retirement, this would obfuscate the distinction between the concepts of resignation and voluntary retirement and render the operation of Rule 26 nugatory. Such an approach cannot be adopted. Accordingly, the finding of the Single Judge that the first respondent 'voluntarily retired' is set aside. 13. We now turn to the question of whether the first respondent had completed twenty years in service. During the present proceedings, our attention was drawn to the fact that the first respondent had applied for voluntary retirement on 14 February 1990. By a letter dated 25 May 1990 the appellant denied the first respondent's application for voluntary retirement on the ground that the first respondent had not completed twenty years of service. It was thus urged that the appellant's decision to deny the first respondent voluntary retirement was illegal as the first respondent had completed twenty years of service. 14. This argument cannot be accepted. Even if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
