Point of Law: 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

JUDGMENT :

AJIT KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Ms. Jigyasa Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Navin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents no. 2 and 3 and Ms. Monika Arya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 4 and perused the record.

2. Affidavit filed today on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3, in compliance of earlier order dated 30.03.2022, is taken on record.

3. The petitioner before this Court claims to be a retired employee of the local body namely Nagar Palika Parishad, Khurja, Bulandshahr on the plea that after serving the Nagar Palika for nearly 32 years and six months he opted for voluntary retirement by submitting his application dated 22.12.2000 which was accepted by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khurja vide order dated 26.12.2000.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of his voluntary resignation being accepted by the Nagar Palika Parishad concerned and his papers for post retirement dues being duly forwarded by the Executive Officer on 28.09.2006, the respondent no. 4 vide order impugned dated 24.01.2007 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for pension and other retiral benefits on the ground that petitioner having resigned from service, applying the provisions as contained in Article 418(A) of Civil Service Regulations petitioner would not be entitled to retirement dues.

5. The contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold: firstly, Article 418(A) of the Civil Service Regulations could not be applicable to the employees of the non centralised service of the local body as their retiral benefits are governed under the UP Nagar Palika Non Centralised Services Retirement Benefits Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred as ‘the 1984 Rules’) and under the said rules, the pensionable service as defined Article 368 has been only made applicable. It is argued thus, that Rules of 1984 being special rules would override the general law applicable to pensionary benefits and other retiral benefits provided for under the Civil Service Regulations and secondly, by no stretch of imagination, the resignation submitted by the petitioner dated 22.12.2020 can be treated as resignation from service and not a voluntary retirement.

6. It is argued that the option for voluntary retirement or compulsory retirement from service almost stand on similar parameters of discretion. While in case of compulsory retirement it is the establishment that decides the utility of an employee to continue him in service whereas in case of voluntary retirement the employee himself determines his utility to continue in service so as to serve the establishment.

7. It is argued that looking to the grounds assigned in the letter of resignation dated 22.12.2000, it is quite apparent that the petitioner was ailing and hence he wanted to tender his resignation but the at the same time looking to the condition of family and need of regular income to meet the requirement, he wanted his son to be given employment and therefore, it is submitted that this letter should be taken to be the one indicating the intention of the petitioner to take voluntary retirement from service.

8. It is also argued that since the petitioner had already rendered 32 years and six months of service and was on the verge of his retirement, he was entitled to opt for voluntary retirement as per the relevant provisions of 1984 Rules.

9. Besides above, it is argued that if it is to be taken as a resignation, it was a conditional one and the respondents should have turned it down in the event they were not offering employment to his son. But since the respondent in his wisdom found it to be a case where the petitioner was not health wise in a position to serve the establishment, it accepted the resignation. Thus, it would be a case according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, of voluntary retirement opted by the petitioner.

10. Per contra, learned c