Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner could not be governed by the Settlement as well as the Circular as: Firstly , the petitioner had resigned from services and not retired voluntarily. The employee who had resigned from services cannot be equated with an employee who voluntarily retired. Counsel submitted that the communication dated 13.02.2008 whereby the application of the petitioner was accepted specifically mentions that the resignation of the petitioner had been accepted and therefore, it is clear that the petitioner had resigned from services. Secondly , at the relevant point of time, there was no provision for the award staff to avail voluntary retirement and therefore, even otherwise, no application of any award staff for voluntary retirement could have been accepted. Therefore, in absence of any provision for voluntary retirement, the only course available to an employee to retire from services prior to the stipulated date was by means of resignation. Meaning thereby, the petitioner having resigned from services, was not entitled for pension in terms of the pension regulations in operation at the relevant time. Therefore, when the petitioner was not entitled for any pension on the date of his retirement, he could not be held entitled for pension subsequently by virtue of the Settlement dated 27.04.2010.
