1. Employee resigned from service and opted for Provident Fund; later sought to treat resignation as voluntary retirement to claim pension after a significant delay. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 853
2000(7) Supreme 91
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.N. Khare and S.N. Phukan, JJ.
Narayan Singh Solanki -Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11730 of 1996
Decided on 25-4-2000
Important Points
The court held that a request to change a retirement benefit option from Provident Fund to Pension after an inordinate delay of 28 years is barred by laches and cannot be entertained, regardless of the merits of the claim.
Subject
Employment Law - Pension and Retirement Benefits
Act Referred
SERVICE LAW: .
Headnote
Service Law-Pension-Railway Service-Appellant resigning from service in 1963 and opting to take Provident Fund-Representation in 1991 to change his option for Provident Fund to Pension Scheme-Claim not entertainable after 28 years-Appellant guilty of latches.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
service law
-
pension and provident fund
- laches (Para 3)
-
pension and provident fund
-
service law
Table of Contents
2. Whether a resignation and acceptance of Provident Fund can be converted to voluntary retirement to allow a change in pension option under Rule 102. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. The court found the appellant guilty of laches for remaining silent for nearly twenty-eight years after accepting the Provident Fund benefits. (Para 3 )
4. A request to change a pension option after an inordinate and unexplained delay is barred by the doctrine of laches. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 3 )
6. Does the doctrine of laches apply to requests for changing pension options after resignation?
Yes. If an employee resigns, accepts a provident fund, and remains silent for an extended period, such as twenty-eight years, a subsequent request to change the option to a pension scheme is barred by laches. (Para 3 )
ORDER
The Appellant herein was appointed as a Clerk in the erstwhile Jodhpur State Railways on 11.4.1950. On the re-organisation of Railways in the year 1952 the Appellant was transferred to Office of Personnel Branch under the Divisional Superintendent, Jodhpur. On 31st July, 1963 the Appellant resigned from service opting to take Provident Fund under the State Railways Provident Fund. The amount of provident fund was offered to the Appellant which was accepted by him and also other benefits to which he was entitled were also given.
2. In the year 1991 the Appellant alleged to have made representation to the Railways requesting to change his option for Provident Fund to the Pension Scheme. Subsequently, the Petitioner, in the year 1992 filed an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal praying therein that the Appellant s resignation in the year 1963 has to be treated as Voluntary Retirement and since he has put in more than 10 years of service, he is entitled to pension under the Pension Scheme and, therefore, his option which exercised in the year 1963 be cancelled. The Tribunal was of the view that the Appellant having not put in 20 years of qualifying service was not entitled to change his option at that stage. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. It is against the said judgment the Appellant is in appeal before us.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant reiterated the argument urged before the Tribunal. His case is that the case of the Appellantis covered by Rule 102 of the Rules. We are not inclined to go into the merits of the matter as we are of the view that the Appellant having resigned from the service and accepted his Provident Fund in the year 1963 and thereafter remained silent for nearly 28 years, and therefore, demand for change in option in the year 1992 did not deserve to have entertained. In fact the Appellant was guilty of latches and, therefore, not entitled to change his option for pension. On this short question we dismiss this appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.
(C.R.) Appeal dismissed.
***************
