Petitioner seeking pensionary benefits as voluntary retiree, having served only 11.5 years and been discharged on request. Court held discharge equates to resignation under rule 26, forfeiting service and barring pension eligibility.
Dismissal of writ petition; relief sought to consider representation for pension denied.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/24TH JYAISHTA, 1938
WP(C).No. 3385 of 2013 (W)
PETITIONER:
BIJU R, NO.357935, ASSAM RIFLES, RESIDING AT VIJU BHAVAN, KARIYAM, SREEKARIYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 017.
BY ADV. SRI.S.VISHNU
RESPONDENT(S):
MAHANIDHESHALAYA ASSAM RIGLES, DIRECTORATE GENERAL, ASSAM RIFLES, SHILLONG-793 011.
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.
BY SRI.N.NAGARESH,ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA BY ADV. SRI.T.SANJAY, CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 3385 of 2013 (W)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1. | TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE COMMANDANT, 45 BATTALION. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2. | TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.357935/45AR/DISCH/07/NE-IIIM DATED 1.8.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P3. | TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 26/10/2010 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P3a. | TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15/6/2012 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P4. | TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/3/2011 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P4a. | TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15/6/2012 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
| EXT.R1(A): | TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE APPLICATION FOR PREMATURE RELEASE FROM SERVICE WITH UNDERTAKING CERTIFICATE DATED 21.4.2006. |
|---|---|
| EXT.R1(B): | TRUE COPY OF RULES 26 OF CCS(PENSION) RULES, 1972. |
| EXT.R1(C): | TRUE COPY OF RULES 48-A OF CCS(PENSION) RULES, 1972. |
| //TRUE COPY// |
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
P.V.ASHA, J.
W.P.(C) No.3385 of 2013
Dated this the 14th day of June, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner who got discharged from Assam Rifles, based on his own request, claims pensionary benefits, treating his discharge from service as voluntary retirement, saying that he was not relieved on resignation.
:2:
W.P.(C) No.3385 of 2013
withdrawn in public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service and therefore he is not entitled to pension. The respondents have produced Ext.R1(a) which shows that at the time of relieving of the petitioner, as he he had applied for discharge from service on compassionate grounds, he was personally interviewed by the Commandant and it was explained to him that no pensionary benefits would be admissible to him. They have also produced the undertaking certificate dated 20.4.2006 by which the petitioner certified that he understood that he would not be entitled to any pensionary benefits for the service rendered by him in the Assam Rifles. Petitioner was discharged from service, on the basis of the recommendation by the Commandant, after issuing the certificate regarding in-admissibility of pensionary benefits for those discharged on request and after obtaining an undertaking from the petitioner.
W.P.(C) No.3385 of 2013
:3:
was compulsorily retired in the interest of Government. Therefore, he does not come under the purview of Rule 38, 39, 40, 47 or 48 also.
W.P.(C) No.3385 of 2013
:4:
Court in Padubidri Damodar Shenoy Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd. [2009 (10) SCC 514] and RBI Vs. Cecil Deniis Solomon [2004 (9) SCC 465] the Apex Court has elaborately considered the difference between voluntary retirement and discharge from service. In Padubidri Damodar Shenoy's case (supra) the apex court was considering the case of an Airport Manager of Indian Airlines who submitted application for voluntary retirement before he attained 55 years, but on completion of 29 years of service, but was not relieved even on completion of notice period. As the Service Regulations provided for voluntary retirement only for those who attained the age of 55 years, the action of the Airlines was upheld. Para 26 of the judgment reads as follows:
“26. In Jaipal Singh v. Sumitra Mahajan:(2004) 4 SCC 522 in an appeal from an election petition, this Court had an occasion to consider the difference between “voluntary retirement” and “resignation”. This Court held thus: (SCC p. 528, para 10)
“10. … In RBI v. Cecil Dennis Solomon (2004)9 SCC 461 this Court has laid down that in service jurisprudence there is a difference between ‘voluntary retirement’ and ‘resignation’ as they convey different connotations. It has been held that voluntary retirement and resignation involve voluntary acts on the part of the employee to leave service and though both involve voluntary acts, they operate differently. One of the basic distinctions between the two is that in the case of resignation, it can be tendered at any time but in the case of voluntary
W.P.(C) No.3385 of 2013
:5:
retirement, it can only be sought for after rendering prescribed period of qualifying service. In the case of resignation, a prior permission is not mandatory while in the case of voluntary retirement, permission of the employer concerned is a requisite condition. Under Rule 16 of the 1958 Rules, an employee who seeks voluntary retirement has to give three months’ notice to enable the employer to complete the designated mode of acceptance. (See Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 9, p. 133.) Lastly, in a given case, the appointing authority may refuse to waive the said notice period which shows that resignation may be unilateral whereas voluntary retirement is bilateral. A similar question came up before this Court in UCO Bank v. Sanwar Mal (2004) 4 SCC 412 in which this Court has inter alia held that in the case of ‘resignation’, the relationship of employer and employee terminates on acceptance of resignation whereas in the case of ‘retirement’, voluntary or on superannuation, the relationship continues for the purposes of payment of retiral benefits. In the case of retirement, there is a nexus between such retirement and retiral benefits.”
:6:
W.P.(C) No.3385 of 2013
from service under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules before the attainment of the age of retirement or before putting the minimum pensionable service of 20 years will not be entitled to pension. Referring to the judgment in Shashikala Devi Vs. Central Bank of India [2014 (16) SCC 260] , where the Apex Court directed that the deceased employee's letter cannot be treated as resignation at a time when he had the requisite qualifying service for seeking voluntary retirement, it is argued that in this case, the discharge from service cannot even be converted as voluntary retirement as held therein, since the petitioner does not have the minimum pensionable service. Similarly in the judgment reported in State of Kerala Vs. E.K.Varghese [2016 (1) KHC 35] a Division Bench of this Court, to which I was also a party, had upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 29 of Part I KSR which provides that resignation entails forfeiture of service. Once the service is forfeited, one cannot seek any of the benefits out of such service.
In the above circumstances, no reliefs can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA
JUDGE
rkc
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner discharged from service on request before completing the minimum qualifying service for pension is entitled to pensionary benefits.
Whether discharge from service on one's own request can be treated as voluntary retirement when the requisite service period is not met.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India Vs. Braj NandanRelied on¶43
Union of India Vs. Braj Nandan [2005 (8) SCC 325] · Who else cites this
Padubidri Damodar Shenoy Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd.Relied on¶44
Padubidri Damodar Shenoy Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd. [2009 (10) SCC 514] · Who else cites this
RBI Vs. Cecil Deniis SolomonRelied on¶44
RBI Vs. Cecil Deniis Solomon [2004 (9) SCC 465] · Who else cites this
Jaipal Singh v. Sumitra MahajanExplained¶47
Jaipal Singh v. Sumitra Mahajan (2004) 4 SCC 522 · Who else cites this
UCO Bank v. Sanwar MalRelied on¶50
UCO Bank v. Sanwar Mal (2004) 4 SCC 412 · Who else cites this
Union of India v. Madhu E.V.Relied on¶52
Union of India v. Madhu E.V. (2012) 5 SCC 474 · Who else cites this
Shashikala Devi Vs. Central Bank of IndiaRelied on¶54
Shashikala Devi Vs. Central Bank of India [2014 (16) SCC 260] · Who else cites this
State of Kerala Vs. E.K.VargheseRelied on¶55
State of Kerala Vs. E.K.Varghese [2016 (1) KHC 35]
BIJU R
THE COMMANDANT, 45TH BATTALION, ASSAM RIFLES
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, MAHANIDHESHALAYA ASSAM RIFLES
THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
P.V.ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
P.V.ASHA
Parties & counsel
