ORDER :

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.08.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 172 of 2008 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6026 of 1997 wherein the writ Court had allowed the Writ Petition preferred by the respondent-employee, for grant of retiral benefits from the Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. (for brevity, “the Corporation”) on the basis of the Life Insurance Corporation (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 (for short, “the 1995 Rules”).

3. The facts, in nutshell, are that the respondent on 15.06.1990 sent a letter to the competent authority of the Corporation seeking voluntary retirement on the ground of illness of his wife. As the said letter was not responded to, he wrote another letter on 18.06.1990 to the Senior Divisional Manager of the Corporation, Jaipur reiterating his prayer for voluntary retirement. The said letter was also not responded to. Thereafter, the respondent on 14.07.1990, sent the letter of resignation from the services of the Corporation with immediate effect. There was a prayer for waiver of notice in the said letter. The request of the respondent seeking resignation and also waiver of the notice period was acceded to by the Corporation vide letter dated 11.01.1991.

4. When the matter stood thus, in the year 1995, the Corporation brought into force the 1995 Rules with retrospective effect from 01.11.1993. After the 1995 Rules came into force, the respondent submitted a representation for grant of pension under the 1995 Rules, stating therein that the said Rules were applicable to him in terms of Rule 3 as he was in service of the Corporation on the 1st day of January, 1986 and had retired having sought voluntary retirement before the 1st day of November, 1993. The said representation was replied to by the Corporation vide letter dated 06.04.1996 stating that the respondent had, in fact, resigned from service of the Corporation and hence, he was not entitled to the grant of pension as per the 1995 Rules.

5. After receipt of the said reply, the respondent entered into further communication with the Corporation asserting his claim but as his request was not paid heed to, he preferred the Writ Petition. As indicated earlier, the learned single Judge vide order dated 08.09.2006 allowed the Writ Petition. It is demonstrable from the order of the learned single Judge that he posed the question whether the resignation of the employee could be treated as retirement. He placed reliance on J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 1808, (1990) 4 SCC 27 and on that basis, came to hold as follows:-

“Here, in the instant case, voluntary retirement was sought though it was considered as a resignation which was accepted on 11.1.91. The Petitioner retired or his resignation was accepted with effect from 14.7.90 which is admittedly prior to 1st day of November, 1993. Thus, it is crystal clear that the scheme is applicable to the petitioner also.”

6. Being of the said opinion, the learned single Judge directed grant of retiral benefits to the respondent, as per the 1995 Rules with effect from the date of his resignation, that is, 12.07.1990 with 6% interest within a period of six months.

7. Being grieved by the aforesaid order, the Corporation preferred an intra-court appeal wherein it was contended that the 1995 Rules could not have been made applicable to the respondent, for the respondent had sought resignation which was accepted, and therefore, he could not be equated with an employee who had voluntarily retired. On behalf of the respondent, it was urged before the Division Bench that regard being had to the fact that at the time of writing of letter dated 14.07.1990, there was no specific prov