ups_00442 — Final settlement dues to a person who had put in required service and eligible for pension cannot be denied just because he used the word 'resignation' in his letter praying for releasing him from service. The word used in the letter for resignation is to be understood as retiring from service even if it is premature but such an employee has the requisite service for grant of pensionary benefits and pensionary benefits has to be granted as per rule

UPS

Final settlement dues to a person who had put in required service and eligible for pension cannot be denied just because he used the word 'resignation' in his letter praying for releasing him from service. The word used in the letter for resignation is to be understood as retiring from service even if it is premature but such an employee has the requisite service for grant of pensionary benefits and pensionary benefits has to be granted as per rule — This chunk pertains to an Original Application (O.A. No. 858 of 2013) filed by a driver in Delhi Transport Corporation seeking final settlement dues, including pension benefits, following his prematu... — Facts: The Applicant herein is a Driver in Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) from 1983 on regular basis. He was served with a charge-sheet on 18-1-1993 and removed from service after regular departmental proceedings vide Order, dated 30-6-1993 after payment of one month's salary as per rule under Section 33 (2)
(b) of the Act. The Industrial Tribunal refused to honour the removal imposed by DTC authorities and on appeal to the High Court of Delhi, the order of the Industrial was upheld. The Applicant, hence, was reinstated with effect from 11-12-2002. On 21-3-2012, he submitted a petition for resignation / premature retirement and claimed pension and other retiral benefits inter alia for 29 years of qualifying service. By the impugned Letter, dated 29-1-2013, his claim for pensionary benefits was rejected on grounds that he had not attained the age of superannuation and that he had resigned from service. Hence, he is not entitled for that claim as per Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Hence this OA is filed to quash the Order, dated 29-1-2013 and for a further direction to the Respondents to pay arrears of pension from 2-7-2012 with interest and monthly pension. Both sides argued their case placing their viewpoints for and against the prayer. The Tribunal considered their contentions. The controversy revolves round the interpretation of Applicants' Letter, dated 21-3-2012, as to whether it is a letter of resignation or virtually a request for premature retirement. Pension Scheme in DTC was introduced by Order No. 16, dated 27-11-1992 covering all employees and those retired with effect from 3-8-1981 onwards, provided they opted for pension within a month of receipt of this Circular for grant of pension and scheme is compulsory even without a letter for those new employees of the Corporation with effect from 23-11-1992. Those employees who withdrew the EPF share contributed by them should return the money with interest. The Office Order No. 16, dated 27-11-1992 is effected with effect from 3-8-1991 as stated above. Clause 9 of the Scheme provides that an employee who did not exercise option within the period of 30 days shall be deemed to have opted for the scheme. Clause 9 is reproduced verbatim. The Applicant opted for pension till he applied for resignation / premature retirement vide Letter, dated 21-3-2012. The Applicant had qualified service and put in 29 years of service for pension. Whether the aforesaid Letter, dated 21-3-2012 is to be treated as resignation or a request seeking premature retirement. That letter is extracted verbatim. The Applicant in his application states that, he had put in 29 years of qualifying service. Even though his letter for premature retirement appears to be a resignation letter, there appears to be no reason for treating it as resignation after he had put in 29 years of qualifying service. "It is a well settled rule that it is the substance and not the words of a document which would decide its nature and character". In the case of Tarkeshwar Sio Thakur Jiu v. Bar Dass Dey & Co. and others [ 1979 (3) SCC 106 ], it was said that the real character of a document is to be ascertained from the transaction involved and not merely from the words or form in which it is dressed. Based on that, the Tribunal held that the Letter, dated 21-3-2012 is not a letter of resignation but is a request for premature retirement. The above view of the Tribunal is also echoed in the case [ WP(C) No. 4833/1993 ], dated 18-10-1994, disposed of by Delhi High Court. That case is fully explained and held that "phraseology used in Clause 3 of the Scheme should be understood in a liberal sense so as to extend the benefit to all those who rendered the qualifying service and there cannot be any artificial distinction between a person who retired and a person who resigned, and thus allowed the writ petition with a direction to extend the Pension Scheme to the petitioner therein". Similar view is also expressed by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Shanti Devi v. Delhi Transport Corporation, WP (C) No. 4871 of 2010 decided on 15-10-2012 and is similar to the present case. In that case also, the Driver prayed for resignation. The Court held that distinction between voluntary retirement and resignation is primarily based on facts as to whether the employee had completed the qualifying service or not. If the employee wants to leave the service after completing the qualifying service, it is to be treated as retirement from service. In the present case also, the Applicant had completed 29 years of service and hence his Letter, dated 21-3-2012 cannot be construed as resignation but a request seeking premature retirement. These two judgments quoted above squarely answers the controversy. Number of judgments are quoted by Respondents. One of them is Reserve Bank of India and another v. Cecil Dennis Solomon and another [ 2004 (9) SCC 461 ]. In that case, the Court held that resignation can be tendered at any time but voluntary retirement can be sought only after rendering prescribed period of qualifying service. Further it was held that in case of voluntary retirement, retiral benefits cannot be denied. Similar view is also expressed in the case of other judgments quoted by the Tribunal in the judgment.

UPS

Final settlement dues to a person who had put in required service and eligible for pension cannot be denied just because he used the word 'resignation' in his letter praying for releasing him from service. The word used in the letter for resignation is to be understood as retiring from service even if it is premature but such an employee has the requisite service for grant of pensionary benefits and pensionary benefits has to be granted as per rule — This chunk pertains to an Original Application (O.A. No. 858 of 2013) filed by a driver in Delhi Transport Corporation seeking final settlement dues, including pension benefits, following his prematu... — Facts: The Applicant herein is a Driver in Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) from 1983 on regular basis. He was served with a charge-sheet on 18-1-1993 and removed from service after regular departmental proceedings vide Order, dated 30-6-1993 after payment of one month's salary as per rule under Section 33 (2)
(b) of the Act. The Industrial Tribunal refused to honour the removal imposed by DTC authorities and on appeal to the High Court of Delhi, the order of the Industrial was upheld. The Applicant, hence, was reinstated with effect from 11-12-2002. On 21-3-2012, he submitted a petition for resignation / premature retirement and claimed pension and other retiral benefits inter alia for 29 years of qualifying service. By the impugned Letter, dated 29-1-2013, his claim for pensionary benefits was rejected on grounds that he had not attained the age of superannuation and that he had resigned from service. Hence, he is not entitled for that claim as per Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Hence this OA is filed to quash the Order, dated 29-1-2013 and for a further direction to the Respondents to pay arrears of pension from 2-7-2012 with interest and monthly pension. Both sides argued their case placing their viewpoints for and against the prayer. The Tribunal considered their contentions. The controversy revolves round the interpretation of Applicants' Letter, dated 21-3-2012, as to whether it is a letter of resignation or virtually a request for premature retirement. Pension Scheme in DTC was introduced by Order No. 16, dated 27-11-1992 covering all employees and those retired with effect from 3-8-1981 onwards, provided they opted for pension within a month of receipt of this Circular for grant of pension and scheme is compulsory even without a letter for those new employees of the Corporation with effect from 23-11-1992. Those employees who withdrew the EPF share contributed by them should return the money with interest. The Office Order No. 16, dated 27-11-1992 is effected with effect from 3-8-1991 as stated above. Clause 9 of the Scheme provides that an employee who did not exercise option within the period of 30 days shall be deemed to have opted for the scheme. Clause 9 is reproduced verbatim. The Applicant opted for pension till he applied for resignation / premature retirement vide Letter, dated 21-3-2012. The Applicant had qualified service and put in 29 years of service for pension. Whether the aforesaid Letter, dated 21-3-2012 is to be treated as resignation or a request seeking premature retirement. That letter is extracted verbatim. The Applicant in his application states that, he had put in 29 years of qualifying service. Even though his letter for premature retirement appears to be a resignation letter, there appears to be no reason for treating it as resignation after he had put in 29 years of qualifying service. "It is a well settled rule that it is the substance and not the words of a document which would decide its nature and character". In the case of Tarkeshwar Sio Thakur Jiu v. Bar Dass Dey & Co. and others [ 1979 (3) SCC 106 ], it was said that the real character of a document is to be ascertained from the transaction involved and not merely from the words or form in which it is dressed. Based on that, the Tribunal held that the Letter, dated 21-3-2012 is not a letter of resignation but is a request for premature retirement. The above view of the Tribunal is also echoed in the case [ WP(C) No. 4833/1993 ], dated 18-10-1994, disposed of by Delhi High Court. That case is fully explained and held that "phraseology used in Clause 3 of the Scheme should be understood in a liberal sense so as to extend the benefit to all those who rendered the qualifying service and there cannot be any artificial distinction between a person who retired and a person who resigned, and thus allowed the writ petition with a direction to extend the Pension Scheme to the petitioner therein". Similar view is also expressed by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Shanti Devi v. Delhi Transport Corporation, WP (C) No. 4871 of 2010 decided on 15-10-2012 and is similar to the present case. In that case also, the Driver prayed for resignation. The Court held that distinction between voluntary retirement and resignation is primarily based on facts as to whether the employee had completed the qualifying service or not. If the employee wants to leave the service after completing the qualifying service, it is to be treated as retirement from service. In the present case also, the Applicant had completed 29 years of service and hence his Letter, dated 21-3-2012 cannot be construed as resignation but a request seeking premature retirement. These two judgments quoted above squarely answers the controversy. Number of judgments are quoted by Respondents. One of them is Reserve Bank of India and another v. Cecil Dennis Solomon and another [ 2004 (9) SCC 461 ]. In that case, the Court held that resignation can be tendered at any time but voluntary retirement can be sought only after rendering prescribed period of qualifying service. Further it was held that in case of voluntary retirement, retiral benefits cannot be denied. Similar view is also expressed in the case of other judgments quoted by the Tribunal in the judgment.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text