An employee must fulfill the eligibility criteria, including completing the required years of service, to be entitled to pension benefits under the Pension Scheme, 1995. Additionally, approaching the Court with unclean hands by suppressing material facts can lead to dismissal of the case.

JUDGMENT

1. This intra court appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 18.10.2022, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant while imposing a cost of Rs.10,000/- with a direction to deposit the same within a period of four weeks with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as an Assistant (Clerk) with the respondent- insurance company since 14.11.1990. On 13.4.2009, the appellant moved an application before the respondent- insurance company seeking voluntary retirement from the services and on the very same day, he has also moved another application expressing his desire to resign from the services. The appellant was ultimately relieved from the services by the respondent-insurance company vide letter dated 22.6.2009 after he deposited due amount of housing loan to the tune of Rs.4,35,000/-.

3. The appellant, thereafter, made several communications to the respondent-insurance company demanding pension and commutation of pension, however, the respondent- insurance company has denied the same and being aggrieved with the action of the respondent-insurance company, the petitioner-appellant has filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge with a prayer for quashing of the order dated 4.3.2013, whereby the respondent-insurance company has denied pensionary benefits to him. The appellant has also prayed that a declaration may be issued to the effect that he is entitled for pension and commutation of pension under Para-14 of the Pension Scheme, 1995. Several other consequential reliefs were also claimed by the petitioner- appellant in the writ petition.

4. The claim of the appellant was refuted by the respondent-insurance company while taking a stand that as a matter of fact, the appellant has not been granted voluntary retirement but his resignation has been accepted and he was relieved from the services on account of acceptance of his resignation and not on account of acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement. It is also contended on behalf of the respondent-insurance company that the request of the appellant for voluntary retirement could not have been accepted by the competent authority because neither he had completed 20 years of service nor he has given 90 days notice as per Para-30 of Chapter-V of the Pension Scheme, 1995.

5. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the provisions of the Pension Scheme, 1995 and the material placed on record by the parties concerned, has held that Para-14 of Chapter-IV of the Pension Scheme, 1995 does not apply to the present case as it is only applicable upon an employee who is retiring from services on attaining the age of superannuation. It is also held that Para-30 of Chapter-V of the Pension Scheme, 1995 deals with the right of an employee working in the respondent-insurance company claiming pension on voluntary retirement from services and as per the same, pension on voluntary retirement will be available to an employee who has completed 20 years of qualifying service, whereas as on 22.6.2009, when the appellant was relieved from services, he had not completed 20 years of service making him eligible for pension in terms of Para-30 of Chapter-V of the Pension Scheme, 1995. The learned Single Judge, while making distinction between the terms 'resignation' and 'voluntary retirement', has held that both the terms do not bear the same meaning.

6. The learned Single Judge has further observed that as the appellant has failed to disclose before this Court that after filing of the application for voluntary retirement, he has also tendered his resignation on the very same day and this fact shows that he has not approached this Court with clean hands and has suppressed the said fact with a clear intention to mislead the Court. After observing this, the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has im