UNION OF INDIA Vs. V.K.SAMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the rule dis-entitling pension to an employee on resignation is valid and is the claim raised by the respondent, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, barred by reason of delay are the questions arising in this O.P filed by the official respondents. The applicant claimed pension for the 18 years he had served in the Naval Dockyard Apprentice School, Vishakapattanam. The Tribunal, based on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Asger Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance Corporation of India [(2016) 13 SCC 797], found that the inapplicability of pension scheme to employees who had resigned was invalid. The Tribunal quoted the entire decision aforesaid to allow the O.A declaring the applicant entitled to pension for the period he served. We immediately notice that the decision relied on by the Tribunal, has been overruled by a larger Bench in Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v. Sree Lal Meena [92019) 4 SCC 479]. There need be no discussion on this aspect.

(2.) The learned ASG specifically argues that there was a resignation and acceptance as is seen from Annexures A4 and A5, way back in 1996 and the applicant had approached the Tribunal for retirement benefits after many years, in the year 2017 by the first O.A. numbered as O.A.No.180/2017. It is specifically pointed out from Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, that an employee on resignation forfeits his right to pension.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submits that there was no resignation submitted by the applicant voluntarily. He had in fact been medically unfit and was on leave and he was arrested by the Police and produced before his Controlling Authority, upon which, he was forced to give Annexure A4 resignation. It is also pointed out that the resignation letter is a typed letter not in his hand and that he had specifically asked for disbursement of the service benefits to his wife. This indicates that if at all he is found to have resigned voluntarily, it was on condition of payment of all service benefits. It is asserted that Annexure A5 though is addressed to the applicant, has never been served on him. Further, it is urged that the earlier order of the Tribunal is binding on the administration and the findings with respect to his right to get pensionary benefits cannot be easily wished away. The learned Counsel seeks to sustain the order of the Tribunal, which granted him pensionary benefits.