An employee's consent to convert a voluntary retirement application into a resignation is binding, impacting entitlement to pension benefits, especially when the qualifying service requirement is not met.

ORDER

Per : Hon’ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)

This is the 3^rd round of litigation. Aggrieved by the order No.E/789/ENG/Court Case No.215 dated 21.12.2018 whereby the Pension/Family Pension of the applicant has been denied, and she has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking following relief:-

“8.1 Lord ships be pleased to admit this petition. And be pleased to issue order quash and setting aside order no. E/789/ENG/Court Case No. 215 dated 21.12.2018 as Annexure A/1, order vide no. E/E/789/1/ONR dated 27:09.1996 (Annexure A/2) and letter vide no. E/1049/1 19.01.1997 (Annexure A/3) A/1. Dated And be pleased to order the respondent to release the all retirement benefit which is due with the respondent with 9% rate of interest from the due date and also released the pension and family pension. benefit. with all consequential

8.2 Cost of Rs. 50000/- from salary of the respondent no. 2.

8.3 Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit.

8.4 Cost of suit be awarded.“

2. Brief facts of the ase are as follows:-

2.1 The applicant submitted that her husband had worked as a Gangman under Engineering Department from 1964. Thereafter, he sought voluntary retirement from 1996. The competent respondent authority had accepted the voluntary retirement of the applicant’s husband w.e.f.19.09.1996.

2.2 However, the DRM(E) issued a letter dated 27.09.1996 to the competent authority seeking clarification regarding acceptance of the voluntary retirement of the husband of the applicant on the point of allowing voluntary retirement without completion of 20 years of service.

2.3 Thereafter, the respondent vide letter No.18/20.01.1997 directed the applicant’s husband that he had not completed 20 years of service, therefore, his voluntary retirement was not accepted however, his resignation was accepted w.e.f. 19.01.1997.

2.4 The applicant further submitted that the husband of the applicant expired on 06.12.2006. Subsequently, she submitted representations dated 17.03.2007 and 12.05.2013 respectively for family pension and death cum retiral benefits. When the respondent authority failed to decide the representations of the applicant, the applicant has approached this Tribunal vide OA No.353 of 2013, which was disposed of by this Tribunal on 30.12.2013 in favour of the applicant and it was directed that the respondent No.2 to consider the representations dated 17.03.2007 and 12.05.2013 and to pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and same should be communicated to the applicant.

2.5 In compliance of the aforesaid order, the respondent had decided the representation and passed the order vide No.E/351/CC/Court/OA No.353/13 dated 30.12.2013 wherein it was mentioned that late Nagin Vajla had not completed 20 years of qualifying service and therefore his voluntary retirement could not be accepted. Further, his resignation was accepted on written consent. Therefore, in view of the above condition, the applicant was not entitled either pension or family pension. Thereafter, the applicant challenged the said order before this Tribunal in the 2nd stage of litigation in OA 215/2014 wherein it was stated that the applicant’s husband was retired under VRS on 19.09.1996 which was also accepted and allowed/sanctioned by the appointing authority.

2.6 It was apt to mention that during the pendency of the OA 215/2014 (supra), the respondent submitted the letter vide letter No.E/E/789/1/ONR dated 27.09.1996 in the reply filed in the aforesaid petition which was internal correspondence