( 1 ) ). THIS appeal, which is filed under Clause 15 of the letters Patent, is directed against judgment dated 26/08/1997 rendered by the learned single Judge, in Special Civil Application No. 2551 of 1997, by which prayer made by the appellant to direct the respondent to treat his resignation from service as voluntary retirement and fix his pension under Paragraph 30 of the general Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995, is rejected.

( 2 ) THE appellant was employed with United India Insurance Company as administrative Officer in Divisional Office at Junagadh. He was not keeping good health and, therefore, he tendered resignation from service by addressing letter dated 27/02/1987 to the Regional Manager, Regional Office, Ahmedabad. A copy of the said letter is produced at Annexure-A to the petition. By the said letter, appellant requested the competent authority to accept his resignation with effect from 1/04/1987 and to treat period from 1/03/1987 to Marc 31/03/1987 as earned leave. The said letter was forwarded to the Chairman-cum- managing Director of the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , who accepted the resignation of the appellant with effect from 1/04/1987. The intimation given by the Regional Manager to the appellant is produced on the record of the case at annexure-B to the petition. In exercise of powers conferred by Sec. 17-A of the general Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, the Central Government has made a Scheme called "general Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995 ("pension Scheme" for short ). The Pension Scheme has come into force on 1st day of November, 1993. As provided in Regulation 3 of the Pension Scheme, the Pension Scheme, inter alia, applies to employees who were in the service of the Corporation or a Company, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of january, 1986, but had retired before the 1st day of November, 1993. According to the appellant, he was entitled to pension in terms of the Pension Scheme and, therefore, he addressed a letter dated 12/09/1995 opting for pension under the said scheme. The respondents were of the opinion that as the appellant had resigned from service, he was not entitled to opt for pension scheme, nor entitled to join pension scheme and, therefore, his request to permit him to opt for pension under the Pension Scheme of 1995 was turned down. Thereupon, the appellant instituted Special Civil Application No. 2551 of 1997 in the High Court and prayed to direct the respondents to fix his pension under Regulation 30 of the pension Scheme by treating his resignation as voluntary retirement. Another consequential relief was also claimed to the effect that action of the respondents in not extending the benefits of voluntary retirement to him should be declared as illegal, arbitrary and unjust.

( 3 ) ON service of notice, Mr. Vinay Kapur, Administrative Officer (Legal) filed affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent No. 1 controverting the averments made in the petition. In the reply, what was stressed was that the appellant had tendered resignation from service, but had not voluntarily retired under any voluntary retirement scheme and, therefore, he was not entitled to any pension under the Pension Scheme of 1995. After pointing out difference between resignation and voluntary retirement from service, what was emphasised in the reply was that the appellant having tendered resignation from service, he was not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petition. The appellant had filed rejoinder controverting the statements made in the affidavit-in-reply and reiterating his claim which was advanced in the petition. The respondents had also filed affidavit-insur- rejoinder to the rejoinder filed by the appellant. However, we think that it is not necessary to refer to the averments made in rejoinder and affidavit-in-surrejoinder in detail while deciding the appeal.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, learned single Judge