Anil Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. And Others
2015 Latest Caselaw 1847 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

(A.F.R.)
 
Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21511 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Gupta
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Trivedi,Meena Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nripendra Mishra,Pankaj Kumar Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.

Hon'ble Bharat Bhushan,J.

Petitioner before this Court seeks quashing of the order dated 26.5.2011, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, whereby Under Secretary of U.P. Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Power Corporation) has informed the petitioner that since he had submitted resignation vide letter dated 10.12.2010 with the request that he wishes to resign from the service of Corporation and the period of notice may be adjusted against the leave encashment, his request had been accepted by the Corporation and intimation in this regard was supplied to the petitioner on 30.3.2011, therefore, in view of such acceptance of resignation, the petitioner is not entitled to pension in view of clause (6) of Corporation's circular dated 1.5.2003 as any employee resigning from the services of Power Corporation is not entitled to pension.

On behalf of the petitioner, initially it was contended that before his resignation could be accepted, he had submitted another letter dated 15.9.2010 for treating his resignation as a request for voluntarily retirement. He submitted that in view of clause (6) of Corporation's circular dated 1.5.2003, he is entitled to post retiral benefits including pension.

On behalf of the Power Corporation, Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Nipendra Misra, submitted before us that under the letter of Managing Director of the Corporation dated 21.5.2003, the mode and procedure in the matter of pension, as enforced under letter of Principal Secretary (Finance) dated 24.6.1996 had been adopted for the Power Corporation employees. Clause (6) of the letter of Principal Secretary (Finance) dated 24.6.1996 permits payment of pension to only such employees who seek voluntarily retirement. The petitioner had resigned from the services of the Corporation and therefore, his case is not covered by clause (6) of the letter of Principal Secretary (Finance). The claim of the petitioner for post retiral benefits including pension is not justified.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the material on record.

Facts which are not disputed are as follows :-

Petitioner was appointed in the employment of Power Corporation on 1.8.1980. He submitted an application for resignation on 14.5.2008, which is alleged to have been accepted on 30.7.2009 and information of the same was communicated to the petitioner under letter dated 30.7.2009. The petitioner claims to have submitted a letter for his resignation being converted into that of voluntarily retirement on 19.9.2010. The facts noted above clearly demonstrate that the petitioner had completed more-than 20 years of active service in the employment of Corporation.

Clause (6) of the order issued by Principal Secretary (Finance) applicable in the matter of payment of pension to the employees of the Corporation has been brought on record before us along with counter affidavit as Annexure11. Clause(6) reads as follows :-

"6- isa'ku dk ekeyk fuEufyf[kr esa ls fdlh ,d izdkj dh lsokfuo`fRr ds laca/k esa gks ldrk gS]

1- v)ru la'kksf/kr m0iz0 jk0 fo0 izk0 deZpkfj;ksa dh lsokfuo`fRr fu;ekoyh 1975%&

sd- vf/ko"kZrk ij%& ;g fnuakd 5 uoEcj 1985 ls iwoZ fu;qfDr lewg ?k bUQhfj;j lfoZl ds deZpkfj;ksa ds ekeys esa 60 o"kZ ij rFkk vU; lHkh ekeyksa esa 58 o"kZ dh vk;q ij gksxhA

[k- LosPNk%&&20 o"kZ dh vgZdkjh lsok ;k 45 o"kZ dh vk;q ds ckn deZpkfj;ksa }kjk yh xbZ LosPNk lsokfuo`fRrA

x- vfuok;Z&&50 o"kZ dh vk;q ds ckn fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh }jk uksfVl nsdj dh xbZ lsokfuo`fRrA"

On simple reading of the aforesaid clause, it will be seen that all those employees i.e. (1) who attained the age of superannuation and retire thereafter; (b) who relinquished the service of the Corporation voluntarily after completing 20 years of services; and (c) all those who voluntarily retire after attaining the age of 50 years, would be entitled to pension.

The dispute between the parties before us is not with regard to qualifying service of 20 years. The dispute is as to whether a person who had resigned would be covered by clause (b) or not.

According to Corporation, the right to resignation is an inherent right of an employee to give up his engagement at any time. While in the case of voluntarily retirement, such power can be exercised only after 20 years of service.

This Court, therefore, required the counsel for the Corporation to demonstrate as to whether under any service rule applicable the mode and manner of resignation/submission of an application for voluntary retirement is regulated.

Counsel for the Corporation conceded that there is no violation of rules in submitting of the application in the matter of resignation/voluntary retirement.

In our opinion, there is hardly any difference on the basis whereof an employee after 20 years of service resigns or submits a voluntarily retirement application. In that sense, resignation and voluntarily retirement only bring about the break of employment between the employee and employer. Both modes bring an end to the contract of service.

In our opinion, applicability of clause (b) can not be confined to application which technicality use the words voluntary retirement in the letter of the employee concerned for excluding its applicability if the letter says that the employee is resigning.

The Power Corporation is not justified in refusing the claim of the petitioner for the purpose of payment of pension etc. even after he has completed more-than 20 years of qualifying service with the Corporation on the ground that he has used the words resignation in place of voluntarily retirement in his letter of dated 14.05.2008. The subsequent letter of petitioner is not of much significant it is superfluous.

We, therefore, hold that petitioner application for retirement from the employment of the respondent Power Corporation dated 14.5.2008 squarely falls within sub-clause (b) of clause (6) of circular dated 24.6.1996. He is held entitled to the post retiral benefits including pension which may be computed by the respondent Corporation strictly in accordance with law within eight weeks and actual payment may be made immediately thereafter.

The writ petition is allowed.

(Bharat Bhushan,J.)        (Arun Tandon,J.)
 
Date :- 18.8.2015
 
SU. 
 

 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21511 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Gupta
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Trivedi,Meena Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nripendra Mishra,Pankaj Kumar Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
 
Hon'ble Bharat Bhushan,J.
 
Civil Misc. (Exemption) Application No.  of 2015
 
Heard learned counsel the the applicant.
 
The personal appearance of Sri Subodh Kumar Sharma, Deputy Secretary, U.P. Power Corporation, Lucknow is dispenses with.
 
The application stands disposed of.
 
Date :- 18.8.2015
 
SU. 
 

 

 
(Bharat Bhushan,J.)        (Arun Tandon,J.)