SHASHIKALA DEVI Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted.

(2.) THE short question that falls for our consideration in this appeal by special leave is whether letter dated 8 October, 2007 sent by late Shri Mauzi Ram, husband of the Appellant, was in essence a letter seeking pre -mature retirement on medical grounds or a letter of resignation from the service of the Respondent -bank. The High Court has while dismissing the writ petition and the appeal filed by the deceased -employee declared that the letter in question was a letter of resignation that resulted in forfeiture of the entire service rendered by the employee disentitling him to claim any pensionary benefits. The correctness of that view is under challenge in this appeal filed by the widow of the deceased employee who passed away during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court. Since the answer to the question so much depends upon the circumstances in which the letter referred to above was written by the deceased -employee, we may as well reproduce the same in extenso:

(3.) THE bank treating the letter of the employee as a letter of resignation from service relieved him apparently because the expression used in the letter was resignation which obviously meant that no financial burden would fall upon the bank in terms of retrial benefits otherwise payable to an employee who has served for the requisite number of years entitling him to retirement.