IMPORTANT POINT
Resignation, retirement and voluntary retirement.

JUDGMENT

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.-Leave granted.

2. We may, for the disposal of these appeals, deal with the facts in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30983-30986 of 2008, since common questions arise for consideration in all these appeals.

3. We are, in these appeals, concerned with the legality of the claim for pension in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund (for short ‘CPF’) of some officers of the Canara Bank who had resigned and stood relieved from their respective posts prior to 3.6.1993, i.e. prior to signing of the Statutory Settlement dated 29.10.1993 under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Joint Note dated 29.10.1993, followed by the Canara Bank Pension Regulations, 1995 (for short ‘Regulations 1995’), which was notified in the Gazette of India on 29.9.1995.

4. The learned single Judge of the High Court held in favour of the appellants but the Division Bench of the High Court held otherwise. Hence, these appeals.

5. We may, as already indicated, refer to the facts of the case in civil appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30983-30986 of 2008. The appellants’ date of appointment and their resignation are as under:

|Position of the |Date of Appointment |Date of Resignation | |Petitioner as per Cause | | | |List | | | |M.R. Prabhakar |27-05-1970 |04-06-1991 | |S. Ananda Rao |09-09-1970 |22-09-1990 | |N. Anand |17-12-1969 |19-04-1993 | |S. K. Mehta |15-12-1965 |01-05-1991 | |N.V. Rangaswamy |24-07-1968 |09-01-1991 | |S. Sathyanarayan |07-0701970 |03-06-1993 | |K. S. Seshadri |18-02-1970 |20-07-1992 | |(since deceased) | | | |K. Suresh Rao |02-05-1970 |30-06-1990 | |P. Govinda Pai |03-04-1968 |30-03-1988 | | 10. K. V. Puranik |01-02-1963 |24-07-1986 |

The above mentioned appellants had submitted their resignations between 24.7.1986 and 3.6.1993 prior to the signing of the Statutory Settlement dated 29.10.1993 under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Joint Note dated 29.10.1993, with regard to the introduction of ‘pension’ as a second retiral benefit in lieu of CPF. Appellants, placing reliance on the various provisions of Regulations 1995, submitted that the pension regulations were introduced as an additional benefit to the serving and retired employees. It was pointed out that an employee who had resigned from the bank was not disentitled to pension except by operation of Regulation 22. If this regulation was held operative against the appellants, it would result in absurd consequences since by forfeiture of entire past service, such employees would not be entitled to any pensionary benefits including gratuity and provident fund. Further, it was pointed out that Regulation 22 admittedly never existed when the appellants had submitted their resignation letters and, therefore, the said regulation could not operate to disentitle the appellants from any pensionary benefits. Further, it was also pointed out when appellants had submitted their letters of resignation prior to 1.1.1993 the concept of ‘voluntary retirement’ did not exist under the Bank Officers Regulations, 1979 (for short ‘Regulations 1979’). Regulation 1979, it was pointed out, neither defined the expression ‘resignation’ legally nor the expression ‘voluntary retirement’. In other words, the concept of ‘voluntary retirement’ was required to be defined only because of the introduction of pension as a retiral benefit with effect from 29.9.1995.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that, in the absence of legal definition of ‘voluntary retirement’ or in the absence of any legally prescribed consequence of ‘resignation’, it may be understood in the sense of ‘voluntary retirement’ of service. Further, it was also urged that the conceptual difference between ‘resignation’ and ‘voluntary retirement’ comes in only if it is made by legal prescription and not in the ordinary sense as perceived in the realm of appointment. Learned counsel also pointed out that pension regulations must be read and interpreted keeping in mind its