Mr. Sharad Venkatesh Khasnis vs The New India Assurance Company ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1651 Bom

k                                  1/3                27 wp 1495.23 as.doc




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO.1495 OF 2023

Sharad Venkatesh Khasnis                                ....Petitioner
     V/S
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr.             ....Respondents
                                ...

Mr. Milan Topkar i/b Ms. Pavitra Manesh for the Petitioner.
Mr. V.Y. Sanglikar for Respondents.
                                    ...

                                CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &
                                       SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY 2023.

P.C.:

1 The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner

seeks declaration that the communications dated 18 October 2019 and 4

July 2022 are illegal. Under the said communication dated 30 March 2012,

it is intimated that the resignation has been accepted. The Petitioner is

relieved from service from the close of office hours on 30 March 2012.

2 Under the communication dated 18 October 2019 the Petitioner is

communicated that the Petitioner does not qualify for the pensionary

benefits. Similar communication is made under a letter dated 4 July 2022.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had

rendered continuous service from 26 September 1978 till the date of his

katkam 1/3 k 2/3 27 wp 1495.23 as.doc

superannuation i.e. 31 October 2017. Due to domestic difficulties the

Petitioner was constrained to serve a notice dated 1 February 2012 for

retirement with effect from 31 March 2012. The Petitioner gave three

months notice. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner the

Petitioner would be entitled for pension. The representations have been

given to reconsider the decision communicated vide impugned letter dated

18 October 2019. The representation has been negatived by the

Respondent. The same is illegal. A person who has rendered such a

continuous service is entitled for pension.

3 The learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the Petitioner

had resigned from service and resignation entails forfeiture of the past

service. The learned Counsel for the Respondents relied upon the judgment

of Apex Court in case of BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs. Ghanshyam

Chand Sharma reported in AIR 2020 SC (Civil) 895 and another judgment

of the Apex Court in a case of Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance

Corporation of India vs. Shree Lal Meena reported in AIR 2019 SC 3510.

The learned Counsel further submits that the Petitioner has accepted

provident fund amount and he is not an optee under the pension scheme.

The claim of the Petitioner is stale one. In the year 2012 only his resignation

was accepted.

katkam                                   2/3
            k                                       3/3                 27 wp 1495.23 as.doc




           4            We have considered the submissions.

           5            It appears from the record that the Petitioner's resignation has been

accepted by the Respondents and the same has been communicated under

letter dated 30 March 2012. The resignation entails forfeiture of past

service. The Apex Court in a case of BSES Yamuna Powar Ltd. (supra)

has observed that employee would not be entitled to the pensionary

benefits as his past service stands forfeited upon resignation.

6 In the present case also the Petitioner has tendered resignation and

the same has been accepted. It would not be appropriate on the part of the

Petitioner to claim that the Petitioner retired on attaining the age of

superannuation on 31 October 2017. In light of that no case is made out,

the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM RAJALINGAM KATKAM KATKAM Date:

2023.02.20 14:37:55 +0530

katkam 3/3