JUDGMENT :

Dr Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J

1. By its order dated 26 May 2017 a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi upheld the judgment of a Single Judge dated 21 March 2017 granting pensionary benefits to the first respondent. The judgment of the Single Judge directed the appellant to pay pensionary benefits to the first respondent on the ground that he had completed twenty years of service and had “voluntarily retired” and not “resigned” from service. The appellant challenges these findings in the present appeal.

2. The first respondent was appointed as a daily rated mazdoor on 9 July 1968. His services were regularised on the post of a Peon on 22 December 1971. The first respondent tendered his resignation on 7 July 1990, which was accepted by the appellant with effect from 10 July 1990. The first respondent was subsequently denied pensionary benefits by the appellant on two grounds. First, that he had not completed twenty years of service, making him ineligible for the grant of pension. Second, in any case, by resigning, the first respondent had forfeited his past services and therefore could not claim pensionary benefits.

3. The second question of whether by resigning, the fi