Kerala High Court
Mani vs State Bank Of Travancore on 5 November, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2000)ILLJ720KER
Author: Arijit Pasayat
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, K.S. Radhakrishnan
JUDGMENT Arijit Pasayat, C.J.
1. In this appeal, judgment of learned single Judge in O.P. No. 13981 of 1996 dated November 14, 1996 is under challenge. Controversy lies within a very narrow campus. Appellant was Manager of State Bank of Travancore (hereinafter referred to as bank). He requested the bank to grant him the benefits of pension scheme. Same was denied on the ground that having tendered resignation, he was not entitled to benefits of the scheme. He filed the above mentioned original petition challenging the decision. Learned single Judge observed that since he had tendered resignation, he was not entitled to benefits of the scheme.
2. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for appellant submitted that factual position has not been considered in its proper perspective. In fact, appellant had not tendered resignation. Though by letter dated July 1, 1991 he had indicated his intention to resign, finding that there was long inaction, he had requested the bank to permit his retirement from service. Bank accepted the request for resignation long after, by which time prayer for resignation had been withdrawn. Learned counsel for the bank, on the other hand, submitted that appellant had clearly requested for acceptance of his resignation in terms of Ext. P-l dated July 1, 1991. There was no withdrawal of the request, as contended. Therefore, learned single Judge was justified in his conclusions.
3. Regulation 20(2) of the State Bank of Travancore (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 (in short, the Regulations) deals with 'termination of service'. State Bank of Travancore (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (in short, Pension Regulations) also need to be noted. Said regulations were brought into force by notification in the Gazette dated March 22, 1996. Clause 22 of the Pension Regulations reads as follows :
"Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank including that of an employee who is deemed to have voluntarily retired from the Bank's service in terms of the provisions for voluntary cessation of employment contained in Bipartite Settlement shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits".
According to aforesaid clause, an employee, who had resigned or is dismissed or removed from service from the bank is not entitled to benefits of the pension. Resignation, dismissal or removal entails forfeiture of entire past service and, therefore, does not qualify for pensionary benefits. In terms of Para 20 of the Regulations, notice period of three months has to expire.
4. There can be no dispute as a proposition in law that a request for acceptance of resignation can be withdrawn before it is actually accepted. General principle is that in the absence of a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, a prospective resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective, and it becomes effective when it operates to terminate the employment or the office-tenure of the resignor (see Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra and Ors. (1978-I-LLJ-492) (SC). It is open to a servant who has expressed his desire to retire from service and applied to his superior officer to give him the requisite permission, to change his mind subsequently and ask for cancellation of the permission thus obtained. He can be allowed to do so as long as he continues in service and not after it is terminated by acceptance of the request for requisite permission. With reference to Ext. P-3 letter dated April 23, 1994, appellant has submitted that there was withdrawal of the resignation letter. We do not find any substance in this plea. Ext. P-l letter dated July 1, 1991 contained the following statement :
".......As I am unable to continue in service, I, hereby submit my resignation which may kindly be accepted......"
(Italicising for emphasis) In Ext. P-3, it has been stated as if the letter dated July 1, 1991 contained a request for permission to retire from service. Relevant portion of the said letter reads as follows :
"I draw your kind attention to my letter dated July 1, 1991 requesting you to allow me to retire from service...."
(Italicised for emphasis) In Ext. P-3, it has been tried to make out as if letter dated July 1, 1991 contained a request by appellant to allow him to retire from service. Quoted portion from Ext. P-l shows it was not so.
5. Undisputed position is that subsequently request for resignation was accepted. In view of the clear stipulations in the Regulations and the Pension Regulations, which have been quoted above, learned single Judge was justified in holding that pension scheme was not applicable to appellant's case and accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.