IMPORTANT POINT
Pension rules, especially those beneficial in nature, should be interpreted liberally, and post-retirement notifications should not unjustly deny employees their entitlement to retirement benefits.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner who had served as a Headmaster of Rongrikimgre Deficit Upper Primary School, Baghmara, after rendering 25 years of service opted for Voluntary Retirement and was released from service by the Government on 02.02.2005. The only grievance in the instant writ petition is that the retirement dues under the Meghalaya Death Cum Retirement Gratuity Rules, 1985 (DCRG) has not been released to the petitioner.

2. Mr. S.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the benefit of the DCRG cannot be denied to the petitioner in terms of Rule 7 of the Meghalaya Aided School Employees (DCRG) Rules, 1985, as he had voluntarily retired and had not resigned from service. It is further submitted that the ground of denial of DCRG on the basis of Notification No. EDN.220/2007/93 dated 06.04.2015, is not tenable, inasmuch as, it is but an amendment by which the entitlement of DCRG under the rules has been made more explicit. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court dated 25.10.2019, passed in WP(C) No. 277 of 2017 (Shri. Aynal Hoque vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors.), and in the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Shashikala Devi vs. Central Bank of India & Others. reported in (2014) 16 SCC 260 and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Limited & Others vs. Mohani Devi & Another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 741 respectively.

3. Ms. Z.E. Nongkynrih, learned GA for the State respondents submits that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered inasmuch as, the petitioner had retired voluntarily in 2005, whereas, the Notification No. EDN.220/2007/93 dated 06.04.2015, which includes employees who retired voluntarily, was made effective only from the date of the said Notification. Learned GA has produced a communication dated 06.07.2022, indicating this fact, and submits that in view of this situation DCRG was not released to the petitioner.

4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties, and examined the materials on record. Pension and other terminal benefits is a vested right for payment of past services rendered by the employee. The only reason for denial of the DCRG to the petitioner by the respondents, is on the ground that it was only after the Notification No. EDN.220/2007/93 dated 06.04.2015, was issued amending the Meghalaya Aided School Employees (DCRG) Rules, 1985, that employees who have retired voluntarily have been considered to be eligible to be granted DCRG, and as the petitioner had retired before the said amendment, he would not be entitled to DCRG.

5. In the scheme of things, especially in matters of pension and grant of terminal benefits, it has to be kept in mind that, provisions or rules with regard to pension, which are beneficial in nature have to be interpreted liberally. In the instant case, the petitioner had taken Voluntary Retirement, after serving the requisite number of years to entitle him to pension and other terminal benefits. As such, to give a interpretation that he is not entitled to DCRG, as the Notification No. EDN.220/2007/93 amending the provision was issued only on 06.04.2015, cannot be taken to be a justifiable ground to deny the DCRG to the petitioner. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on his contention that, the notification is an amendment which is more clarificatory in nature, and if the legislative intent was to exclude Voluntary Retirement, the same would have been made clear in the rules itself. In the judgment of Shashikala Devi (supra) Para - 20 which is relevant is quoted herein below:

'20. In Union of India v. Lt. Col. P.S. Bhargava, this Court was dealing with a case where the respondent was denied pension on the ground that he had voluntarily retired from service. Dismissing the appeal filed by the Union of India, this Court held that Regulation 16 of the Pension Regulations applicable to the respondent did not deal with voluntary resignations and could not, therefore, be pressed into servic