Judges : ARIJIT PASAYAT,K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
Mani - Appellant
Versus
State Bank of Travancore - Respondent
Case No : W.A. No. 156 of 1997
Decided On : 11/05/1999
Advocates Appeared :
A.K. Avirah For Appellant M. Pathrose Mathai & Saji Varghese For Respondent
Resignation - Pension Scheme - The court held that the appellant, who had tendered resignation, was not entitled to the benefits of the pension scheme as per the regulations. The judgment discusses the interpretation of the resignation letter and the principles regarding the withdrawal of resignation.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Manager of State Bank of Travancore, requested the bank to grant him the benefits of the pension scheme after tendering resignation. The bank denied the benefits, leading to the appellant filing a petition challenging the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's request for resignation was accepted, and as per the regulations, resignation entails forfeiture of past service and does not qualify for pension benefits. The court dismissed the Writ Appeal, upholding the decision of the learned single judge.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant, having tendered resignation, was entitled to the benefits of the pension scheme as per the regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the regulations and emphasized that resignation entails forfeiture of past service and does not qualify for pension benefits. It also discussed the principles regarding the withdrawal of resignation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Writ Appeal, upholding the decision of the learned single judge that the pension scheme was not applicable to the appellant's case.
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.
In this appeal, judgment of learned single judge in O.P. No. 13 981 of 1996 dated 14.11.1996 is under challenge. Controversy lies within a very narrow campus. Appellant was Manager of State Bank of Travancore thereinafter referred to as bank). He requested the bank to grant him the benefits of pension scheme. Same was denied on the ground that having tendered resignation, he was not entitled to benefits of the scheme. He filed the above mentioned original petition challenging the decision. Learned single judge observed that since he had tendered resignation, he was not entitled to benefits of the scheme.
2. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for appellant submitted that factual position has not been considered in its proper perspective. In feet, appellant had not tendered resignation. Though by letter dated 1.7.1991 he had indicated his intention to resign, finding that there was long inaction, he had requested the bank to permit his retirement from service. Bank accepted the request for resignation long after, by which time prayer for resignation had been with drawn. Learned counsel for the bank, on the other hand, submitted that appellant had clearly requested for acceptance of his resignation in terms of Ext. P1 dated 1.7.1991. There was no withdrawal of the request, as contended. Therefore, learned single judge was justified in his conclusions.
3. Regulation 20(2) of the State bank of Travancore (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 (in short, the regulations) deals with 'termination of servicel. State Bank of Travancore (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (in short, Pension regulations ) also need to be noted. Said regulations were brought into force by notification in the Gazette dated 22.3.1996. Clause 22 of the Pension Regulations reads as follows :
Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank including that of an employee who is deemed to have voluntarily retired from the Bank's service in terms of the provisions for voluntary cessation of employment contained in Bipartite Settlement shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionery benefits."
According to aforesaid clause, an employee, who had resigned or is dismissed or removed from service from the bank is not entitled to benefits of the pension. Resignation, dismissal or removal entails forfeiture of entire past service and, therefore, does not qualify for pensionery benefits. In terms of Para. 20 of the Regulations, notice period of three months has to expire.
4. There can be no dispute as a proposition in law that a request for acceptance of resignation can be withdrawn before it is actually accepted. General principle' is that in the absence of a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, a prospective resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective, and it becomes effective when it operates to terminate the employment or the office-tenure of the resignor (see Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra and others- AIR 1978 SC 694). It is open to a servant who has expressed his desire to retire from service and applied to his superior officer to give him the requisite permission, to change his mind subsequently and ask for cancellation of the permission thus obtained. He can be allowed to do so as long as he continues in service and not after it is terminated by acceptance of the request for requisite permission. With reference to Ext. P3 letter dated 23.4.1994, appellant has submitted that there was withdrawal of the resignation letter. We do not find any substance in this plea. Ext. P1 letter dated 1.7.1991 contained the following statement:
"As I am unable to continue in service. I hereby submit my resignation which may
kindly be accepted" (underlining for emphasis)
In Ext. P3, it has been stated as if the letter dated 1.7.1991 contained a request for permission to retire from service. Relevant portion of the sai
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.