Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
National Insurance Co. Ltd., And Anr vs Manohar Singh And Anr ... on 18 March, 2026
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:13707-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1033/2014
1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Having its Head Office at 3-
Middleton Street, Kolkata through its Chairman- cum -
Managing Director.
2. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Comapany
Ltd.,Sardulganj, Bikaner.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Manohar Singh S/o Shri Mehtab Singh Rathore, resident of
Jajju House, Purani Gilani, Bikaner.
2. Union Of India throught the Joint Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Insurance Division,
Govt. of India, New Delhi.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jagdish Vyas
Mr. Shyam Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bhandari
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Judgment
18/03/2026
1. This present special appeal has been filed against the judgment
dated 30.04.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 5988/2006, whereby the writ petition filed by the
respondent No.1 herein, has been allowed and appellants have been
directed to compute the pension payable to the respondent No. 1 while
treating the letter dated 18.01.2006 as offer for voluntary retirement
and not resignation.
2. The respondent no.1 was appointed as Development Inspector
(Development Officer) on 09.08.1979 and confirmed on 29.7.1980. On
18.01.2006, respondent no.1 submitted his resignation letter before the
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:35:40 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:53:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13707-DB] (2 of 16) [SAW-1033/2014]
Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Bikaner, requesting that due to
unavoidable family circumstances, he is not in a position to continue
with the service and thereafter he did not report on duty and remained
absent. The said resignation letter was forwarded to the Jaipur Regional
Office of the appellant Company. The said resignation letter was
accepted on 17.02.2006 and respondent no.1 was relieved from his
duties with gratuity payable to him after deduction of various dues and
loans including three months salary in lieu of shortfall in the notice
period expiring on 18.04.2006 i.e three months. The respondent no.1
was informed vide communication dated 06.07.2006 that the company's
contribution towards Provident Fund has been retained as well as
transferred to General Pension Fund and the respondent no.1's share
was paid to him.
2.1 Being aggrieved, the respondent no.1 has filed a writ petition
challenging the action of the appellant company denying the pensionary
benefits to him and prayed that his resignation be treated as voluntary
retirement and he is eligible to receive the pension as per Clause 30 of
the General Insurance Employee's Pension Scheme, 1995 (herein after
referred as 'the Pension Scheme, 1995').
2.2 Reply to the aforesaid writ petition was filed on behalf of the
appellant company stating that the intention of the respondent no.1 was
clear from the resignation letter and as a consequence of accepting his
resignation, his entire past service stood forfeited in accordance with
Clause 22 of the Pension Scheme, 1995.
2.3 Subsequently, the writ petition was allowed vide impugned
judgment dated 30.04.2014 directing appellant company to compute
the pension payable to the respondent no.1 within a period of three
months from the date of passing the judgment.
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:35:40 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:53:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13707-DB] (3 of 16) [SAW-1033/2014]
3. The controversy involved in this matter hinges around the
question as to whether the request made by respondent No. 1 in letter
dated 18.01.2006 is to be considered as 'resignation' or 'voluntary
retirement', as the subsequent pensionary benefits will depend on the
answer to this question.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is not only contrary to the
scope of Clause 22 of the Pension Scheme, 1995 but also contrary to
the views expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UCO Bank vs
Sanwar Mal : 2004 4 SCC 412 and LIC vs Shree Lal Meena : 2019 4
SCC 479. He further submitted that the respondent No. 1 had stated in
his letter dated 18.01.2006 that due to unavoidable family
circumstances, he is not in a position to continue with his services and
had resigned from the services with immediate effect and prayed for
settling the dues as per the norms. He further submitted that the
respondent No. 1' did not report on duty and remained absent
thereafter and subsequently the request was accepted on 17.02.2006.
Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the
respondent no.1 was well aware about the difference between the
concerned terms 'Resignation' & 'Voluntary retirement' and their
consequences.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned
Single Judge has committed error in holding that the resignation
submitted by the respondent No. 1 deserves to be treated as voluntary
retirement for all purposes along with holding that the respondent No. 1
is entitled to pension.
6. He further submitted that a perusal of Clause 22 of the Pension
Scheme, 1995 provides that the employees, who have resigned from
the services, are disqualified for the pensionary benefits. The
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:35:40 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:53:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13707-DB] (4 of 16) [SAW-1033/2014]
acceptance of resignation entails forfeiture of past services and, as a
consequence, he shall not be qualified for the pension benefits. Learned
Single Judge has failed to consider the difference between the voluntary
retirement and resignation. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment
rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanwar Mal (supra)
emphasizing for the clarification between 'resignation' and 'voluntary
retirement'.
7. Learned counsel pleaded that the learned Single Judge has placed
heavy reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Sheel Kumar Jain v. NIA : 2011 12 SCC 197 but it is not applicable
to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Sheel Kumar
Jain's case (supra) was distinguished by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
M.R. Prabhakar vs. Canara Bank : 2012 9 SCC 671 and the same
was affirmed by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Shree Lal Mena (supra).
8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supported the impugned
judgment dated 30.04.2006 and submitted that the learned Single
Judge has appreciated the fact that the respondent No. 1 inadvertently
used the word 'resignation' in his letter dated 18.01.2006 coupled with
the fact that the resignation was accepted only after completion of one
month on 17.02.2006. As also, since, the appellant company deducted
3 months salary in lieu of shortfall in the notice period, respondent No.1
should not be denied the pensionary benefits as per Pension Scheme,
1995. The learned Single Judge has perused the Pension Scheme, 1995
and has given the reasoned judgment as to why the respondent No.1
should be considered under Clause 30 and not under the Clause 22 of
the Pension Scheme, 1995. The learned Single Judge has rightly held
that the general purpose of the Pension Scheme 1995, read as a whole,
is to grant pensionary benefits to employees, who have rendered
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:35:40 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:53:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13707-DB] (5 of 16) [SAW-1033/2014]
services in the Insurance Companies and had retired after putting in the
qualifying service in the Insurance Companies. Clauses 22 and 30 of the
Pension Scheme, 1995 cannot be so construed as to deprive an
employee of an Insurance Company, such as the respondent no.1, who
had put in the qualifying service for pensionary benefits. Learned
Counsel for the respondent No. 1 placed reliance on the judgement in
Sheel Kumar Jain's case (supra).
9. Heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and perused
the material available on record.
10. The relevant portion of the Pension Scheme, 1995 is reproduced
as under:
"22. Forfeiture of service -
Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination or
compulsory retirement of an employee from the service
of the Corporation or a Company shall entail forfeiture
of his entire past service and consequently shall not
qualify for pensionary benefits.
***
30. Pension on Voluntary Retirement: -
(1) At any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than ninety days, in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service:
Provided further that this sub-paragraph shall not apply to an employee who is on deputation unless after having been transferred or having returned to India he has resumed charge of the post in India and has served for a period of not less than one year:
Provided further that this sub-paragraph shall not apply to an employee who seeks retirement from service for being absorbed permanently in an autonomous body or a public sector undertaking to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement. (2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-
paragraph (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority:
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:35:40 PM) (Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:53:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:13707-DB] (6 of 16) [SAW-1033/2014] Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.
(3) (a) An employee referred to in sub-paragraph (1) may make a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than ninety days giving reasons therefore;
(b) on receipt of request under Clause (a), the appointing authority may, subject to the provisions of sub-paragraph (2), consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of ninety days on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may relax the requirement of notice of ninety days on the condition that the employee shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the notice of ninety days.
(4) An employee who has elected to retire under this paragraph and has given necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority:
Provided that the request for such withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement. (5) The qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily under this paragraph shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such employee shall not in any case exceed thirty three years and it does not take him beyond the date of retirement.
(6) The pension of an employee retiring under this paragraph shall be based on the average emoluments as defined under Clause (d) of paragraph 2 of this scheme and the increase, not exceeding five years in his qualifying service, shall not entitled him to any notional fixation of pay for the purpose of calculating his pension;"
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:35:40 PM) (Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:53:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:13707-DB] (7 of 16) [SAW-1033/2014]
11. The plain reading of the Clause 22 of the Pension Scheme, 1995 reveals that the resignation has been considered as one of the grounds for forfeiture of the services and in the present matter, respondent No. 1 has clearly mentioned that he is seeking resignation with immediate effect and the same has been accepted by the concerned authority.
Nowhere it has been mentioned that respondent No. 1 approached the appellant company for considering his case as 'voluntary retirement' and not as resignation as well, as he intends to seek pensionary benefits in terms of Pension Scheme, 1995 before filing the writ petition. Particularly, in the present case, the resignation was sought by way of correspondence dated 18.01.2006, which came to be accepted vide correspondence dated 17.02.2006. Post that the correspondence dated 30.03.2006 (Annexure-4) was sent informing the terminal benefits post resignation, to which, the respondent-petitioner would be entitled. Post that, subsequent correspondence dated 06.07.2006 was also issued enclosing the statement of Provident Fund account. The petitioner, for this entire period nowhere filed any correspondence disputing the fact that he had wrongly mentioned resignation in the correspondence dated 18.06.2006 (Annexure-2) and was essentially entitled to treat the same as voluntarily retirement. The writ petition was thereafter filed after substantial delay on 09.10.2006, which itself shows that the petitioner was clear with regard to submitting his resignation and there was no intention of claiming voluntarily retirement.
12. In the case of Shree Lal Meena (supra), which was relied upon by the counsel for the appellants, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the distinction between 'resignation' and 'retirement', including 'voluntary retirement'. The relevant paragraphs of the above-mentioned judgment are reproduced as under: -
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:35:40 PM) (Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:53:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:13707-DB] (8 of 16) [SAW-1033/2014] "24. In UCO Bank v. Sanwar Mal, once again, in the case of a similar Pension Scheme, the observations were made as under: (SCC pp. 417-20, paras 6-7 & 9) "6. To sum up, the Pension Scheme embodied in the regulation is a self-supporting scheme. It is a code by itself. The Bank is a contributor to the pension fund. The Bank ensures availability of funds with the trustees to make due payments to the beneficiaries under the Regulations. The beneficiaries are employees covered by Regulation
3. It is in this light that one has to construe Regulation 22 quoted above. Regulation 22 deals with forfeiture of service. Regulation 22(1) states that resignation, dismissal, removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. In other words, the Pension Scheme disqualifies such dismissed employees and employees who have resigned from membership of the fund. The reason is not far to seek. In a self-
financing scheme, a separate fund is earmarked as the Scheme is not based on budgetary support. It is essentially based on adequate contributions from the members of the fund. It is for this reason that under Regulation 11, every bank is required to cause an investigation to be made by an actuary into the financial condition of the fund from time to time and depending on the deficits, the Bank is required to make annual contributions to the fund. Regulation 12 deals with investment of the fund whereas Regulation 13 deals with payment out of the fund. In the case of retirement, voluntary or on superannuation, there is a nexus between retirement and retiral benefits under the Provident Fund Rules. Retirement is allowed only on completion of qualifying service which is not there in the case of resignation. When such a retiree opts for self-financing Pension Scheme, he brings in accumulated contribution earned by him after completing qualifying number of years of service under the Provident Fund Rules whereas a person (Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:35:40 PM) (Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:53:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:13707-DB] (9 of 16) [SAW-1033/2014] who resigns may not have adequate credit balance to his provident fund account (i.e. bank's contribution) and, therefore, Regulation 3 does not cover employees who have resigned. Similarly, in the case of a dismissed employee, there may be forfeiture of his retiral benefits and consequently the framers of the Scheme have kept out the retirees (sic resigned) as well as dismissed employees vide Regulation 22. Further, the pension payable to the beneficiaries under the Scheme would depend on income accruing on investments and unless there is adequate corpus, the Scheme may not be workable and, therefore, Regulation 22 prescribes a disqualification to dismissed employees and employees who have resigned. Lastly, as stated above, the Scheme contemplated pension as the second retiral benefit in lieu of employer's contribution to contributory provident fund. Therefore, the said Scheme was not a continuation of the earlier scheme of provident fund. As a new scheme, it was entitled to keep out dismissed employees and employees who have resigned.
7. In the light of our above analysis of the scheme, we now proceed to deal with the arguments advanced by both the sides. It was inter alia urged on behalf of the appellant Bank that under Regulation 22, category of employees who have resigned from the service and who have been dismissed or removed from the service are not entitled to pension, that the Pension Scheme constituted a separate fund to be regulated on self- financing principles, that prior to the introduction of the Pension Scheme, there was in existence a provident fund scheme and the present Scheme conferred a second retiral benefit to certain classes of employees who were entitled to become the members/beneficiaries of the fund, that the membership of the fund was not dependent on the qualifying service under the Pension Scheme, that looking to the financial implications, the Scheme framed mainly covered retirees because retirement presupposed larger number of years of service, that (Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:35:40 PM) (Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:53:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:13707-DB] (10 of 16) [SAW-1033/2014] in the case of resignation, an employee can resign on the next day of his appointment whereas in the case of retirement, the employee is required to put in a certain number of years of service and consequently, the scheme was a separate code by itself, that the High Court has committed manifest error in decreeing the suit of the respondent inasmuch as it has not considered the relevant factors contemplated by the said Scheme and that the Pension Scheme was introduced in terms of the settlement dated 29-10-1993 between IBA and All- India Bank Employees' Association, which settlement also categorically rules out employees who have resigned or who have been dismissed/removed from the service.
***
9. We find merit in these appeals. The words "resignation" and "retirement" carry different meanings in common parlance. An employee can resign at any point of time, even on the second day of his appointment but in the case of retirement he retires only after attaining the age of superannuation or in the case of voluntary retirement on completion of qualifying service. The effect of resignation and retirement to the extent that there is severance of employment (sic is the same) but in service jurisprudence both the expressions are understood differently. Under the Regulations, the expressions "resignation" and "retirement" have been employed for different purpose and carry different meanings. The Pension Scheme herein is based on actuarial calculation; it is a self-financing scheme, which does not depend upon budgetary support and consequently it constitutes a complete code by itself. The Scheme essentially covers retirees as the credit balance to their provident fund account is larger as compared to employees who resigned from service. Moreover, resignation brings about complete cessation of master-and-servant relationship whereas voluntary retirement maintains the relationship for the purposes of grant of retiral benefits, in view of the (Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:35:40 PM) (Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:53:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:13707-DB] (11 of 16) [SAW-1033/2014] past service. Similarly, acceptance of resignation is dependent upon discretion of the employer whereas retirement is completion of service in terms of regulations/rules framed by the Bank. Resignation can be tendered irrespective of the length of service whereas in the case of voluntary retirement, the employee has to complete qualifying service for retiral benefits. Further, there are different yardsticks and criteria for submitting resignation vis-à-vis voluntary retirement and acceptance thereof. Since the Pension Regulations disqualify an employee, who has resigned, from claiming pension, the respondent cannot claim membership of the fund. In our view, Regulation 22 provides for disqualification of employees who have resigned from service and for those who have been dismissed or removed from service. Hence, we do not find any merit in the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent that Regulation 22 makes an arbitrary and unreasonable classification repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution by keeping out such class of employees. The view we have taken is supported by the judgment of this Court in RBI v. Cecil Dennis Solomon. Before concluding we may state that Regulation 22 is not in the nature of penalty as alleged. It only disentitles an employee who has resigned from service from becoming a member of the fund. Such employees have received their retiral benefits earlier. The Pension Scheme, as stated above, only provides for a second retiral benefit. Hence there is no question of penalty being imposed on such employees as alleged. The Pension Scheme only provides for an avenue for investment to retirees. They are provided avenue to put in their savings and as a term or condition which is more in the nature of an eligibility criterion, the Scheme disentitles such category of employees as are out of it."
25. We may only note that in the above discussed judgment, an argument assailing the Regulation for forfeiture of service, based on Article 14 of the (Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:35:40 PM) (Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:53:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:13707-DB] (12 of 16) [SAW-1033/2014] Constitution of India was repelled. The provisions under the new Regulations were held not to be in the nature of penalty, but a disentitlement, as a consequence of having resigned from service and, thus, being disentitled from having become a member of the fund. There are other judgments also in the same line, but not laying down any additional principles and, thus, it would suffice to just mention them i.e. M.R. Prabhakar v. Canara Bank and J.M. Singh v. LIC.
26. There are some observations on the principles of public sectors being model employers and provisions of pension being beneficial legislations. We may, however, note that as per what we have opined aforesaid, the issue cannot be dealt with on a charity principle. When the legislature, in its wisdom, brings forth certain beneficial provisions in the form of Pension Regulations from a particular date and on particular terms and conditions, aspects which are excluded cannot be included in it by implication. The provisions will have to be read as they read unless there is some confusion or they are capable of another interpretation. We may also note that while framing such schemes, there is an important aspect of them being of a contributory nature and their financial implications. Such financial implications are both, for the contributors and for the State. Thus, it would be inadvisable to expand such beneficial schemes beyond their contours to extend them to employees for whom they were not meant for by the legislature.
***
42. It is relevant to note that M.R. Prabhakar dealt with a similar scheme for employees of Canara Bank, and the plea was that such of the employees who had resigned must be construed as voluntarily retired, thus, entitling them to pensionary benefits. Suffice to say that, once again, the principle was of differentiation between the concept of "voluntary retirement" and "resignation". Regulation 2(y) as applicable to the employees of Canara Bank, being pari materia to Rule 2(y) under the Pension Regulations of 1995, had brought in "voluntary retirement" in the definition of "retirement", but had not considered it appropriate to bring in the concept of (Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:35:40 PM) (Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:53:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:13707-DB] (13 of 16) [SAW-1033/2014] "resignation". Service jurisprudence, recognising the concept of "resignation" and "retirement" as different, and in the same regulations these expressions being used in different connotations, left no manner of doubt that the benefit could not be extended, especially as resignation was one of the disqualifications for seeking pensionary benefits, under the Regulations."
13. The distinction between 'resignation' and 'voluntary retirement' is not merely nomenclatural but is rooted in the legal intent, consequences and the governing service rules. Following the ratio decidendi in Shree Lal Meena (supra) case, the court observes that the 'voluntary retirement' is a right typically earned through a specific period of qualifying service, intended to secure retiral benefits. On the contrary, 'resignation' is a voluntary act of relinquishing one's service, which usually entails a forfeiture of past service, unless the Rules specify otherwise. It is also clear that resignation is a unilateral act on the part of the employee, whereas voluntarily retirement is bilateral act, which requires a period of three months to be effective and further acceptance on the part of the employee.
14. As far as the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondent-petitioner i.e. the judgment in the case of Sheel Kumar Jain's (supra) is concerned, the same is clearly distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case in hand. In that particular case, the resignation was tendered on 16.09.1991 and at the relevant time the Pension Scheme, 1995 was not in vogue. Furthermore, in that case the employee had submitted the resignation with clear stipulation that the same shall be effective after three months. It was in that background that the Hon'ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that the intention of the employee by mentioning three months was clear that the case in hand was a case of voluntarily retirement and not of resignation. The Hon'ble Apex Court had also considered the fact that at (Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:35:40 PM) (Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:53:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:13707-DB] (14 of 16) [SAW-1033/2014] the relevant time when the resignation was sought, the pension scheme was not in vogue and that was also one of the guiding factors, which came to the rescue of the petitioner therein, whereby Hon'ble Apex Court had directed the resignation to be treated as voluntarily retirement.
15. However, as far as case in hand is concerned, the resignation has been tendered in the year 2006, which was given much later when the Pension Scheme, 1995 came into force. Thus the writ petitioner was well aware that he has tendered a resignation and not seeking pensionary benefits. Not only this, as per the resignation letter (Annexure-2), it is clear that the petitioner had not even sought three months time and has rather stated the he resigns with immediate effect. For the sake of convenience, the Annexure-2 is quoted as below:
"To, The Deputy General manager National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Jaipur Regional Office,
JAIPUR-302004
Respected Sir,
It is requested that due to some
unavoidable family circumstances I am not in a position to continue my services, So I resign from the services with immidiate effect You are requested to please accept my resignation and settle my dues as per norms.
Date: 18.01.2006
(Manohar Singh Rathore)
Development Officer
D.O. Bikaner"
16. It is thus clear that the only intent of the writ petitioner had been to resign and nowhere he had sought voluntarily retirement.
Furthermore, the fact that, post tendering the letter dated 18.01.2006, the applicant did not come for a single date, it also fortifies the stand of the petitioner that the intention of the petitioner was clear that he had (Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:35:40 PM) (Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:53:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:13707-DB] (15 of 16) [SAW-1033/2014] resigned and even in the remotest thought, there was no question of seeking voluntary retirement. The Pension Scheme, 1995 was already invoked; in spite of that, a decade thereafter, the application in question was filed seeking resignation, meaning thereby that the petitioner was well aware of the consequences of resignation, and in spite of that, he had sought resignation knowing as well that past services stood forfeited. The reasoning mentioned above finds support from the judgments passed by the Apex Court in Shree Lal Meena (supra), and M.R. Prabhakar (supra).
17. An identical issue came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hagami Lal v. State Bank of India & Anr. D.B. (Civil Writ Petition No.3028/2006) decided on 09.12.2022, wherein dealing with identical circumstances and also considering the justification with regard to forfeiture of past service on resignation vis-a-viz the impact of grant of compassionate allowance upon dismissal, removal or termination of service, the Division Bench has held that once a language of resignation is clear then the same cannot be treated as voluntarily retirement and that the argument with regard to grant of compassionate allowance on dismissal cannot be equated with grant of pension under the Rules of 1995.
18. In the present matter, action of the respondent No. 1 align squarely with the consideration for resignation. The letter dated 18.01.2006 submitted was an unconditional expression of an intent of severance of the employer-employee relationship immediately without a specific claim to pensionary benefits under the Pension Scheme, 1995.
Applying the ratio decidendi laid down in Shree Lal Meena (supra), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 'resignation' is a complete abandonment of the post, we find that the respondent No.1's exit (Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:35:40 PM) (Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:53:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:13707-DB] (16 of 16) [SAW-1033/2014] lacked the specific statutory intent required for it to be treated as voluntary retirement.
19. Accordingly, this Court finds that the letter dated 18.01.2006 in the present case, constitutes resignation as per Clause 22 of the Pension Scheme, 1995 declaring forfeiture of services of respondent No.1. Consequently, the respondent No.1 is not entitled to the reliefs associated with voluntary retirement under the Pension Scheme, 1995.
The present appeal is, therefore, allowed in light of the above discussion and the impugned judgment dated 30.04.2014 passed by learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside.
20. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 135-AK Chauhan/-
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:35:40 PM) (Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:53:34 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)