9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... THAT:- No evidence has been placed on the record to show that the first respondent took issue with the denial of voluntary retirement between 25 May 1990 and 7 July 1990. To the contrary, in the legal notice dated 1 December 1992 sent by the first respondent to the appellant, the first respondent admitted to having resigned. The first respondent's writ petition was instituted thirteen years after the denial of voluntary retirement and eventual resignation. In the light of these circumstances, the denial of voluntary retirement cannot be invoked before this Court to claim pensionary benefits when the first respondent has admittedly resigned. Whether the first respondent has served twenty years? - HELD THAT:- The question is of no legal consequence to the present dispute. Even if the first respondent had served twenty years, under Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules his past service stands forfeited upon resignation. The first respondent is therefore not entitled to pensionary benefits. Appeal allowed. - Civil Appeal No. 9076 Of 2019, SLP (C) No. 6553 Of 2018 - - - Dated:- 5-12-2019 - Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud And Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. JUDGMENT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on on retirement was made retrospectively applicable to employees retiring prior to 1995, however, the provisions regarding voluntary retirement were not. The LIC Pension Rules also stipulated that resignation amounted to a forfeiture of past service. In deciding whether the appellant was entitled to pension under the LIC Pension Rules, Justice Vikramajit Sen speaking for a two judge Bench of this Court held: 16. ... [quoting Sheelkumar Jain v New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 12 SCC 197] The aforesaid authorities would show that the court will have to construe the statutory provisions in each case to find out whether the termination of service of an employee was a termination by way of resignation or a termination by way of voluntary retirement and while construing the statutory provisions, the court will have to keep in mind the purpose of the statutory provisions... 17. The appellant ought not to have been deprived of pension benefits merely because he styled his termination of service as resignation or because there was no provision to retire voluntarily at that time. The commendable objective of the Pension Rules is to extend benefits to a class of peopl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present case, the Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi relied on the decision in Asger Ibrahim Amin to hold that the first respondent was entitled to pensionary benefits. The Single Judge noted that the first respondent had completed more than twenty years of service and would have been eligible for pension upon voluntary retirement. Therefore, despite the first respondent using the term 'resignation', on an independent determination of the facts of the case, the Single Judge held that he had in fact 'voluntarily resigned' from service'. 7. Mr. C. U. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, brought to our attention that the correctness of the court's approach in Asger Ibrahim Amin had been called into question by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Senior Divisional Manager, LIC v. Shree Lal Meena [2015] 17 SCC 43 ('Shree Lal Meena I ), which referred the matter to a larger Bench of this Court. Thereafter, a three judge Bench of this Court was constituted and delivered a judgement in Senior Divisional Manager, LIC v. Shree Lal Meena [2019] 4 SCC 479 ( Shree Lal Meena M ) overruling the view taken in Asger Ibrahim Amin. Both these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned' or 'voluntarily retired', the decision in Asger Ibrahim Amin obliterated the distinction between resignation and retirement. The court noted that there is a real difference between resignation and retirement . They cannot be used interchangeably, and the court cannot substitute one for the other merely because the employee has completed the requisite number of years to qualify for voluntary retirement. 10. In Shree Lal Meena II, upholding the interpretation in Shree Lal Meena I, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul speaking for the three judge Bench, noted that the retrospective application of the provision on voluntary retirement in the LIC Pension Rules would lead to an absurd result: 19. What is most material is that the employee in this case had resigned. When the Pension Rules are applicable, and an employee resigns, the consequences are forfeiture of service, under Rule 23 of the Pension Rules. In our view, attempting to apply the Pension Rules to the respondent would be a self-defeating argument. As, suppose, the Pension Rules, were applicable and the employee like the respondent was in service and sought to resign, the entire past service would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed form, a beneficial construction cannot run contrary to the express terms of the provisions: 26. There are some observations on the principles of public sectors being model employers and provisions of pension being beneficial legislations (see Asger Ibrahim Amin v LIC). We may, however, note that as per what we have opined aforesaid, the issue cannot be dealt with on a charity principle. When the legislature, in its wisdom, brings forth certain beneficial provisions in the form of Pension Regulations from a particular date and on particular terms and conditions, aspects which are excluded cannot be included in it by implication. The view in Asger Ibrahim Amin was disapproved and the court held that the provisions providing for voluntary retirement would not apply retrospectively by implication. In this view, where an employee has resigned from service, there arises no question of whether he has in fact 'voluntarily retired' or 'resigned'. The decision to resign is materially distinct from a decision to seek voluntary retirement. The decision to resign results in the legal consequences that flow from a resignation under the applicable provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not challenge this decision but resigned, on 7 July 1990. The denial of voluntary retirement does not mitigate the legal consequences that flow from resignation. No evidence has been placed on the record to show that the first respondent took issue with the denial of voluntary retirement between 25 May 1990 and 7 July 1990. To the contrary, in the legal notice dated 1 December 1992 sent by the first respondent to the appellant, the first respondent admitted to having resigned. The first respondent's writ petition was instituted thirteen years after the denial of voluntary retirement and eventual resignation. In the light of these circumstances, the denial of voluntary retirement cannot be invoked before this Court to claim pensionary benefits when the first respondent has admittedly resigned. 15. On the issue of whether the first respondent has served twenty years, we are of the opinion that the question is of no legal consequence to the present dispute. Even if the first respondent had served twenty years, under Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules his past service stands forfeited upon resignation. The first respondent is therefore not entitled to pensionary benefits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
