The Delhi High Court has stated that an employee who tenders an unconditional resignation is not entitled to pension in view of Regulation 18 of the NABARD Pension Regulations, 1993 . It was stated that the completion of requisite qualifying service to apply for voluntary retirement is immaterial if an employee had chosen to resign.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner earlier worked in the Indian Army as a clerk and started working for National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development after leaving the Army. He, however, tendered his resignation after 12 years of service which was duly accepted by NABARD. The petitioner claimed he was entitled to pensionary benefits that since he was in government service for more than 21 years. He claimed that as per Regulation 4 of the Regulations stating that he was entitled to get pension on completion of mere 10 years of service. During the exchange of correspondence between him and NABARD, the petitioner was apprised that he was not eligible for grant of pension as his entire service stood forfeited on account of the fact that he had resigned. The petitioner sent various representations but did not get a positive reply and hence decide to move to the High Court with a Writ petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel contended that the petitioner was kept in dark and was never made aware that he would be forfeiting his pension in case he was to resign. She also argued that the petitioner was rather misled and it was only on account of persistent harassment and insult by some senior officers of NABARD that the petitioner had to resign and in such a peculiar situation, the resignation should be rather considered as a case of voluntary retirement. The counsel also stated that impact of “voluntary retirement” and “resignation” was same and similar, supplementing that it was only on account of the harassment and insult by the senior officers that the petitioner had submitted a letter of resignation.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel reiterated that the petitioner had become ineligible for grant of any pension as his entire service stood forfeited in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations considering, he had resigned from his post. The counsel also claimed that the petitioner was guilty of delay as the writ petition had been filed after a gap of more than 20 years. He, however admitted that as per Regulation 4 of the Regulations, there is a provision for grant of pension after completion of 10 years of service but it is supplemented that case of the petitioner is not covered under the aforesaid Regulation as he had not retired from the service but had resigned. The counsel thus claimed that petitioner was not entitled to any pension and none of his legal rights were infringed for which he could have filed a writ petition.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that there was no dispute about the service tenure which the petitioner had in Indian Army or for that matter in NABARD but petitioner had tendered his unconditional resignation and there was nothing mentioned therein which indicated that he had opted for voluntary retirement. The Court further stated that the resignation was eventually accepted and the communications sent by NABARD in this regard were not disputed. The Court also noticed that the petitioner’s contention that he had to resign on account of some harassment did not hold any ground. The Court cited Union of India Vs. Abhiram Verma 2021 SCC Online SC 845 and elucidated the difference between resignation and voluntary retirement.
The Court reiterated that seeking voluntary retirement and resigning might be voluntary in nature but they operate differently considering an employee takes a conscious and deliberate decision when he is resigning. The Court ruled that the petition lacked merit and substance.
Decision:
The Court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Krishan Kumar Singh v. Union of India and Ors.
Case No: W.P.(C) 11211/2017
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Jain
Advocates for Petitioner: Ms. Sudha Varshney and Mr. Ankush Sharma, Advocates
Advocates for Respondent: Mr. H.S. Dahiya, Mr. Amit Kumar and Mr. Yuv Dahiya, Advocates
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
