| Headnote |
Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 – Regn. 18 – Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 – rr. 3(1)(a) and 23 – Respondent tendered a letter of resignation on 14.7.1990 – Resignation was accepted by the appellant-LIC – There was no scheme or provision for voluntary retirement applicable to respondent during this period of time – More than 5 years later, Pension Rules, 1995 were brought into force and made applicable to all the employees who were in service of the LIC on or after 1.1.1986, but had retired before 1.11.1993 – Respondent sought application of the Pension Rules – Pursuant thereto, the respondent filed writ petition – High Court decided in his favour – On appeal, held: Pension Rules show that the resignation entails forfeiture of the entire post service and consequently, would not qualify for pensionary benefits – In the instant case, on the relevant date respondent took a conscious decision to dis-engage himself from the services of the appellant, on the terms and conditions as prevalent on that date – As to what happened five years hence, would have no bearing on any benefit, which can accrue to such employee as a respondent except to the extent which is specifically made applicable to him – Also, r.3(1)(a) has used a clear and unequivocal expression ‘retired’ and it has not used any alternative expression, for determination of the relationship of employer-employees, like ‘resignation’ – When the pension Rules are applicable and an employee resigns, the consequences are forfeiture of service, u/r.23 of the Pension Rules – Any attempt to apply the Pension Rules to the respondent would be self-defeating argument – Thus, impugned orders unsustainable. General Insurance (Termination, Superannuation and Retirement of Officers and Development Staff) Scheme, 1976 – Cl. 4(4A) – General Insurance (Employees’) Pension Scheme, 1995 – Appellant tendered his resignation on 1.10.1993, however, termed it as ‘premature retirement’ – Letter of resignation was accepted – After three years of the resignation, an amendment was made to the 1976 Scheme by inserting Cl.4(4A), introducing the concept of Voluntary Retirement Scheme on 1.11.1996 – This clause was made retrospectively applicable from 1.11.1993 – The object was to have consonance with the ‘1995 scheme’ – Appellant sought pension on the basis of the 1995 scheme resting his case on Sheel Kumar Jain v. New India Assurance Company Limited – Writ petition filed by appellant, was rejected by the High Court – On appeal, held: The reasoning of the Division Bench of High Court was that the case of the appellant was of resignation and not of voluntary retirement – The opinion of the Division Bench of High Court was also based on a relevant fact, that the condition in terms of Cl.4(4A) required completion of 55 years of age, while the appellant was not of 55 years of age on the date of his resignation or its acceptance – Besides, there is a clause of forfeiture of service in case of resignation – Appellant did not fulfill the pre-requisites to avail the benefits of the new pension scheme – Mere categorisation by the appellant himself of his resignation as ‘premature retirement’ was not sufficient – Appellant did not have the requisite age when he resigned even were the 1976 scheme to be made applicable – Apart from that, the appellant remained silent for years together and that Supreme Court, taking a particular view subsequently, in Sheel Kumar Jain, would not entitle state claims to be raised on this behalf, like that of appellant – Thus, relief sought by the appellant rejected. Andhra Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 – Andhra Bank officers’ Service Regulations, 1982 – Appellants were employees of the respondent-Bank, viz., Andhra Bank, who resigned from service during the window period of 1991 and 1993 – Thereafter, Pension Regulations, 1995 were introduced and it was made applicable for employees, who retired on or after 01.01.1986 but before 01.11.1993 – Appellants sought benefit of these pension Regulations – Writ petition by appellants – High Court rejected thewrit petition – On appeal, held: Rule 2(y) under pension Regulations, 1995 had brought in ‘voluntary retirement’ in the definition of ‘retirement’, but had not considered it appropriate to bring in the concept of ‘resignation’ – Service jurisprudence, recognising the concept of ‘resignation’ and ‘retirement’ as different, and in the same regulations these expressions being used in different connotations, left no manner of doubt that the benefit could not be extended, especially as resignation was one of the disqualifications for seeking pensionary benefits, under the Regulations. Words and Phrases – ‘Voluntary Retirement’ and ‘ Resignation’ – Discussed. |
