Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Union of India and another - Appellants
Versus
Abhiram Verma - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1027 of 2020
Decided On : 30-09-2021
(A) Service Law – “Resignation” and “Voluntary Retirement” – There is distinction between “resignation” and “voluntary retirement” – A person can resign at any time during his service, however, an officer cannot ask for premature/voluntary retirement unless he fulfils eligibility criteria – Though both involve voluntary acts, they operate differently – One of basic distinctions is that in case of resignation it can be tendered at any time, but in case of voluntary retirement, it can only be sought for after rendering prescribed period of qualifying service – Other fundamental distinction is that in case of former, normally retiral benefits are denied but in case of latter, same is not denied – In case of former, permission or notice is not mandated, while in case of latter, permission of employer concerned is a requisite condition – When legislature, in its wisdom, brings forth certain beneficial provisions in form of Pension Regulations from a particular date and on particular terms and conditions, aspects which are excluded cannot be included in it by implication. (Paras 7, 8 and 8.1)
(B) Service Law – Pensionary Benefits – Regulation 19(h) and 19(j) of Pension Regulations, 2008 – Pension Regulations, 1961 – Regulation 15 – Resignation from Indian Army (Armed Medical Corps) on the ground of lack of promotional prospects – Having tendered resignation, respondent has to suffer consequences and now cannot be permitted to take ‘U’ turn and say that what respondent wanted was “premature retirement” and not “resignation” – Respondent had resigned and his resignation was accepted much prior to coming into force of Pension Regulations of Army, 2008 – Pension Regulations of Army, 2008 shall not be applicable to case of respondent as respondent would be governed by Pension Regulations, 1961, which have no pari materia provisions like Regulation 19(h) and 19(j) of Pension Regulations of Army, 2008 – Same has no retrospective applicability – As respondent did not retire on reaching prescribed age limit for compulsory retirement, respondent cannot be said to be a “late entrant” – Respondent is not entitled to terminal/pensionary benefits as a “late entrant” in terms of Regulation 15 of Pension Regulations – Impugned judgment and order passed by Armed Forces Tribunal quashed and set aside. (Para Paras 8.1, 9, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 9.2.2018 passed by Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Srinagar at Jammu in T.A. No. 25/2017(SWP No. 454 of 2008), by which Tribunal has disposed of the said transfer application by setting aside para 2 of letter dated 31.01.2007 to the extent it denied terminal/pensionary benefits to the respondent herein – original applicant and directed the appellants-original respondents to process his claim for terminal/pensionary benefits taking his qualifying service as 15 years as regards “late entrant” in terms of Regulation 15 of the Pension Regulations and to release the same together with arrears, the department – Union of India and another have preferred the present statutory appeal.
Findings of Court:
As per Regulation 15, a “late entrant” is an officer who is retired on reaching the prescribed age limit for compulsory retirement with at least 15 years commissioned service (actual). As the respondent did not retire on reaching the prescribed age limit for compulsory retirement, respondent cannot be said to be a “late entrant”. The purpose and object seems to be to give 5 years relaxation/grace for qualifying service for earning a retiring pension.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 9.2.2018 passed by the Learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Srinagar at Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in T.A. No. 25/2017(SWP No. 454 of 2008), by which the learned Tribunal has disposed of the said transfer application by setting aside para 2 of letter dated 31.01.2007 to the extent it denied terminal/pensionary benefits to the respondent herein – original applicant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondent’) and directed the appellants – original respondents to process his claim for terminal/pensionary benefits taking his qualifying service as 15 years as regards “late entrant” in terms of Regulation 15 of the Pension Regulations and to release the same together with arrears, the department – Union of India and another have preferred the present statutory appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under :
That the respondent herein commissioned in the Indian Army (Armed Medical Corps) as a Short Service Commission Officer on 27.03.1992 for a period of five years at the age of 33 years and 10 months. He voluntarily applied for Permanent Commission on 7.8.1997. He was granted Permanent Commission at the age of 39 years and 2 months on 28.01.1998. Respondent became a Graded Specialist on 1.6.1994 and thereafter he became a Classified Specialist on 1.6.1999. By letter/application dated 15.04.2000, the respondent applied for resignation on the ground of lack of promotional prospects. At this stage, it is required to be noted that his actual date of superannuation at 56 years of age was 31.05.2014. The application for resignation came to be rejected by the DG, Medical Services (Army) vide communication dated 4.9.2000. That thereafter the respondent filed a statutory complaint on 24.03.2001 against the rejection of his resignation, the same was rejected by the Under Secretary, Government of India on 14.03.2002. That thereafter the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir being SWP No. 1573/2001 against the rejection of his complaint by the Under Secretary, Government of India. The said writ petition came to be allowed by the High Court vide order dated 11.10.2006 quashing the order of the Under Secretary which rejected the respondent’s resignation and directed the Army to consider the case of resignation afresh. That thereafter the respondent’s resignation came to be accepted vide order/communication dated 31.01.2007, however, it was stated that he was not entitled to any terminal benefits except for encashment of leave (the denial of the terminal benefits was the subject matter before the Armed Forces Tribunal). The name of the respondent was struck off from the Army Medical Corps vide movement order dated 22.04.2007, with effect from 23.04.2007.
2.1 That thereafter the respondent preferred the writ petition before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir being SWP No. 454/2008 for grant of gratuity and pension, which subsequently came to be transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal as TA No. 25/2017. That by the impugned judgment and order dated 9.2.2018, the learned Tribunal has disposed of the said transfer application directing the appellants to process the respondent’s claim for terminal/pensionary benefits taking qualifying service as 15 years as a “late entrant” under Regulation 15 of the Pension Regulations. That leave to appeal has also been dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 25.03.2019.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal directing the appellants to process the respondent’s claim for terminal/pensionary benefits taking qualifying service as 15 years as a “late entrant” under Regulation 15 of the Pension Regulation, the Union of India and another have preferred the present appeal.
3. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India has appea
(1) There is distinction between “resignation” and “voluntary retirement” – Though both involve voluntary acts, they operate differently.(2) When legislature, in its wisdom, brings forth certain bene....
Resignation entails forfeiture of past service, making the employee ineligible for pensionary benefits.
The judgment established the distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement, upheld the disqualification of pensionary benefits in case of resignation, and emphasized that the petitioner kn....
An employee if has attained the age of 50 years and has spent 20 years of service, he would be entitled to seek voluntary retirement and so consequential benefits
Resignation and retirement have different legal implications, and the scope of a pension scheme may not extend to resigned employees.
Point of Law : In service jurisprudence, the expressions “superannuation”, “voluntary retirement”, “compulsory retirement” and “resignation” convey different connotations. Voluntary retirement and re....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
