LUCIOUS S CHRISTIAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Advocates.

(2.) The petitioner before this Court is a former employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the respondent No. 2 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). The petitioner was appointed as a Typist in Class-III service of the Corporation on 1st June, 1971. In the year 1994, the petitioner applied for leave with a view to going abroad. His application for leave from 7th November, 1994 to 4th February, 1995 was sanctioned. However, on expiry of the period of leave, the petitioner did not report for duty and remained absent from duty without leave. On 24th May, 1995 a notice was issued upon the petitioner to show cause why disciplinary action should not be commenced against him. In response to the said show-cause notice on 10th June, 1995, the petitioner tendered a letter of resignation. Under order dated 14th November, 1995, the said letter of resignation was accepted and was made effective from l lth uly, 1995. It is undisputed that on petitioner's resignation from service, his accounts with the Corporation were settled and he was paid amount of provident fund including the contribution by the Corporation.

(3.) It appears that while the petitioner's resignation was pending consideration before the Corporation, the Central Government introduced a pension scheme known as The Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees') Pension Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Pension Rules') by its Notification dated 28th June, 1995. The Pension Rules were made effective from 1st November, 1993. Pursuant to the said Notification, the petitioner filled-in necessary forms for pension, however, under order dated 6th December, 1995, the same was denied to him. Feeling aggrieved, he gave a notice dated 13th November, 1997 which was replied to by the Corporation on 18th November, 1997. The petitioner's request for pension having been turned down, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 3A. Mr. Parikh has submitted that the petitioner had served the Corporation for more than 20 years and. his resignation ought to have been considered to be an application for 'voluntary retirement and the petitioner ought to be treated as having retired from service of the Corporation. He has further submitted that be it resignation or voluntary retirement, both leads to the termination of master and servant's relationship prematurely at the volition of the servant concerned. Both, therefore, should be treated at par and the servant concerned who had resigned from service should be entitled to the same benefits as that of the servants who are permitted to take voluntary retirement. Mr. Parikh has also challenged the validity of Rule 23 of the Pension Rules. It is contended that the said Rule 23 is arbitrary and discriminatory inasmuch as it treats the resignation and voluntary retirement differently. Thus, servants who are otherwise similarly situated are meted discriminatory treatment. The equals are given unequal treatment. The rule is, therefore, arbitrary, unconstitutional and ultra vires Art. 14 of the Constitution. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s. J. K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg, Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v. State of U. P. & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 1808 and of Committee of Management Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad & Ors. v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad & Ors., 1998 (4) SCC 104, and of Praduman Kumar Jain v. Union of India & Anr., 1994 (4) SLR 439. Mr. Parikh has also relied upon judgments of this Court in the matter of Ramabhai Popatbhai Bhangi & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2000 (1) GLR 437, and of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter of Suresh Kumar Sharma v. The State of Haryana & Ors., 1999 (5) SLR 649, and of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in the matter of Smt. Bimla Devi v. Union of India & Ors., 1992 (2) SLJ 310. Dated : 21-7-2000