IMPORTANT POINT
Resignation and voluntary retirement are distinct; an employee who resigns after a pension scheme's applicability cannot claim its benefits.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

1. This is an intra-court appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by the respondents in W.P.(C)No.20291 of 2011 challenging the judgment dated 02.02.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed directing the 2^nd appellant Bank to admit the respondent as a member of the Pension Scheme and disburse consequential benefits to him with effect from 27.04.2010. The respondent was further directed to refund the entire amount as contemplated under Ext.P5 to the Bank within six weeks.

2. The writ petition was one filed by the respondent herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

“i) to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records leading upto Exhibit P11 and quash Exhibit P7 and P11.

ii) to issue declarations as follows:-

(a) Though petitioner used the word 'resignation' in Exhibit P2 request to relieve from the service due to health reason, the nature of the request is definitely seeking permission' from the Bank authorities to relieve him from the duty which is in effect, a case of Voluntary Retirement. Hence turning down the request of the petitioner for treating Exhibit P2 as a request for voluntary retirement by Exhibit P11 order by the 1^st respondent is highly arbitrary, illegal and without any application of mind.

(b) to declare that using of the word ‘Resignation’ in Exhibit P2 cannot be used to deny the petitioner's right to join pension scheme and that the petitioner is entitled and qualified to join the pension scheme in terms of 9^th Bipartite settlement/ joint note dated 27.04.2010, as his case is squarely covered under clause A (1) of Exhibit P5 pension Scheme.

iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to join the pension scheme as per Exhibit P5 and to accept the contribution and sanction pension”.

3. The respondent joined the service of the 2^nd appellant Bank on 01.09.1975 in one of its branches at Calicut. On 30.04.2010, he submitted Ext.P2 resignation letter to the Bank requesting to relieve him with effect from 31.05.2010, due to his ill-health. By Ext.P3 letter dated 28.05.2010 his resignation was accepted by the 3^rd appellant Deputy General Manager of the Bank. On the basis of Exts.P2 and P3, the respondent received all his service benefits from the Bank. Meanwhile, the 9^th bipartite settlement dated 27.04.2010 was signed between the Indian Banks’ Association and Workmen’s Union and the same was circulated by Ext.P5 circular dated 07.09.2010 of the Bank. As per paragraph No.1 of Ext.P5, the employees who were in service of the Bank prior to 29^th day of September 1995 and continue to be in the service of the Bank as on 27^th day of April, 2010 were entitled to give an option in writing within 60 days from the date of the said Circular to become a member of the Pension Fund. The respondent exercised his option in writing on 13.09.2010 and he undertook to refund the service benefits received by him. But, by Ext.P7 letter dated 03.11.2010, the 3^rd appellant rejected his request. Thereafter, the respondent submitted Ext.P8 representation dated 14.02.2011 to the 2^nd appellant to treat Ext.P2 request as the one made for voluntary retirement. Since no action was followed in Ext.P8 representation the respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.6992 of 2011 and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment dated 07.03.2011 directing consideration of Ext.P8 representation. Pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment, the 1^st appellant offered a personal hearing to the respondent and thereafter by Ext.P11 order dated 25.05.2011, Ext.P8 representation was rejected. Contending that the respondent made Ext.P2 with an intention to give him voluntary retirement and not as a resignation, he filed the W.P.(C)No.20291 of 2011 before this Court. By the impugned judgment dated 02.02.2015, the learned Single Judge