A S KHAN Vs. SENIOR DIVISIONAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as Senior Branch Manager in the cadre of Class-I Officer with the first respondent, Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short, 'the Corporation' ). The case made out by the petitioner is that he voluntarily retired from service on 7-11-1991 due to some domestic and personal reasons. This petition is filed for the relief to declare that the age of the officer to be 55 years at the time of voluntary retirement under regulation 19 (2) (a) to be ultra vires and violative of Arts. 14, 16 (1), 21, 39 (d) and 41 of the Constitution of India and further declare the respondent Corporation to grant commutation amount of the pension and to pay pension from the date of his retirement on 1-11-1993 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE facts germane for the disposal of this case can be stated in brief as follows : The petitioner, as stated earlier, was a Class-I Officer. Due to some domestic problems, he proposes to take voluntary retirement from the service of the Corporation. The petitioner, pursuant to Annexure-C dated 5th August, 1991, tendered a letter for voluntary retirement. The voluntary retirement letter which is very brief would contain that he has submitted the voluntary retirement application and he requests them to permit him to leave the Head Quarters and his absence may be treated EOL till it is accepted. The said communication at Annexure-C was replied by the Corporation, copy of which is produced at Annexure-D, the respondents have informed the petitioner that in terms of the Regulation 19 (2) (a) of the Life Insurance Corporation Staff Regulations, 1960 (for short, 'the Staff Regulations') an employee may be permitted to retire at any time after he completes 55 years of age. But however, they would suggest that since the petitioner is only 52 years old, his representation for voluntary retirement cannot be considered. But however, they would communicate that if the petitioner desires to resign from the services of the Corporation under Regulation 18 (l) (a) of the Staff Regulations he may send a fresh letter of resignation giving three months' notice. Pursuant to Annexure-D, the petitioner has sent Annexure-E. The communication is, issued to the Senior Divisional Manager of the Corporation at Raichur, Karnataka. The subject of the said letter is resignation from the service of the LIC of India. The contents of the said letter are also very brief. The contents are that with reference to the zonal office letter dated 28-10-1991, the precise words used by the petitioner are "i hereby submit my resignation letter from the services of Life Insurance Corporation of India for your kind perusal. All future correspondence may please be made against the aforesaid address. " This resignation letter was accepted by the respondent Corporation and the petitioner was relieved of his duties. After his resignation from the Corporation, under Section 49 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 and with the previous approval of the Central Government certain Staff Regulations to the officers and employees came into force. The sum and substance is that any officer or an employee of the fi - nancial institution which are in the nature of Bank and Insurance Company, have retired from service or who have voluntarily taken retirement between the cut of date 1-1-1986 are entitled for pension. Under Rule 55 of the LIC of India Pension Rules, 1995, the petitioner made an application for grant of pension. A copy of the said application letter is at Annexure-F. Pursuant to Annexure-F, the petitioner has lodged his claim. In the column which is referable to the reasons of retirement/cessation of service, he would indicate that he is voluntarily retiring from service. It is to be noticed that the said application seeking pension was given on 4-9-1995. The petitioner gives a representation on 9th February, 1999, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-j requesting the Corporation to consider his case for pension. Annexure-K is another representation which is given on 9th May, 2000 once again requesting the Corporation to consider his representation dated 9th February, 1999. It is noticed that the said Annexure-K is issued from London where the petitioner is residing. The Camp address in India is at Bangalore. Since the said representations are not considered, this writ petition is filed for the aforesaid reliefs including a mandamus to the Corporation to consider the representations.

(3.) SMT . Shantha Chellappa, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, at the outset, submits that the ruling which is sought to be pressed into service has no application, inasmuch as, the same has been reversed by the Apex Court. She further submits that the Staff Regulations, 1960 would cover the service conditions. She would rely on Regulation 18 as well as Regulation 19 to buttress her contention that the letter issued by the petitioner at Annexure-E cannot be termed as a voluntary retirement application but is required to be treated as a resignation letter sim - pliciter without any strings attached. Hence the question of the petitioner claiming pension does not arise.