इलाहाबाद : इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने कहा है कि स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति व अपनी मर्जी से इस्तीफे में कोई फर्क नहीं है। यह सेवा समाप्ति के तरीके भर हैं और नियोक्ता व कर्मचारी के बीच करार की विषय वस्तु है। कोर्ट ने शिवचरन दास कन्हैया लाल इंटर कालेज इलाहाबाद में 30 वर्ष की सेवा के बाद इस्तीफा देने वाले अध्यापक को सेवानिवृत्ति परिलाभों का हकदार माना है। निर्देश दिया है कि आठ हफ्ते के भीतर याची की पेंशन व अन्य परिलाभों का निर्धारण कर वास्तविक भुगतान करे।
यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति सुनीता अग्रवाल ने डॉ. राम किशोर शुक्ल की याचिका को निस्तारित करते हुए दिया है। याचिका पर अधिवक्ता पीयूष शुक्ल व वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता आरके ओझा ने बहस की। याचिका में इस्तीफा स्वीकार होने के आधार पर पेंशन न देने के आदेश को चुनौती दी गई थी। याची का कहना था कि पारिवारिक समस्या के कारण उसने लेक्चरर पद से त्याग पत्र दे दिया था किंतु शीघ्र ही इसे वापस लेने की अर्जी भी दी थी। प्रबंध समिति ने इस्तीफा स्वीकार किए जाने के आधार पर पेंशन देने से इन्कार कर दिया। याची का कहना था कि सेवा नियमावली 1964 के अनुसार 25 साल की सेवा के बाद पेंशन पाने का अधिकार है। याची ने 30 साल की सेवा की है इसलिए उसे पेंशन पाने का अधिकार है। कोर्ट ने कहा कि सेवानिवृत्ति या इस्तीफा सेवा समाप्ति का एक तरीका है जिससे नियोक्ता व कर्मचारी के बीच संविदा का अंत होता है। याची ने 2003 में 30 साल की सेवा के बाद इस्तीफा दे दिया था। ऐसे में उसे पेंशन देने से इन्कार नहीं किया जा सकता।
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2322 of 2014
Petitioner :- Dr. Ram Kishore Shukla
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Piyush Shukla,Pratyush Shukla,R.K. Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 14.8.2012 on the ground that the pensionary benefit cannot be denied to him merely because he had resigned from the post of Lecturer on account of some family problem. The petitioner has put in 30 years of service in the institution in question whereas the qualifying period of service for grant of pension as per the Rules 17 of the Pension Rules is only 25 years.
The submission is that as per note (II) of sub rule 4 of Rules 17 as contained in Chapter-V of the pension rules namely U.P. Government Aided� Educational Institution employees contributory provident fund/insurance/pension rules, 1964 which was promulgated w.e.f. 1st October, 1964, an employee who has rendered 25 years of qualifying service is entitled to pension after voluntarily retirement.
Submission is that the resignation was an out come of personal circumstances which was beyond the control of the petitioner and he had relinquished the service on his own. As is done in the case of voluntarily retirement, the petitioner had given three months notice as required by Regulation 29 of Chapter-III of U.P. Intermediate Education Act. 1921. This fact is evident from the findings recorded by this Court in the judgment and order dated 13.2.2012 passed in Special Appeal No. 1281 of 2007 (Dr. Ram Kishore Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others) filed by the petitioner. Though the petitioner had disputed the factum of resignation of service by pleading that he had withdrawn the resignation before it could be approved by the Committee of Management, however, he could not establish this fact. The request of withdrawal of resignation of the petitioner has been rejected by the Committee of Management as his resignation was already accepted.
However, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the pension rules and the observation of Division bench of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2015 (10) ADJ 264, the petitioner is entitled to post retiral benefits including pension. The Division bench of this Court after considering the service rules, came to the conclusion that the mode and manner of resignation/submission of an application for voluntarily retirement is one and the same. In the case of resignation by the employee only notice was required to be given same as in the case of moving application for voluntarily retirement. It was held that the relevant clause which provides for pension to an employee in case of voluntarily retirement cannot be confined to the words "voluntarily retirement" rather it will also be applicable in the case of employees who had resigned. It was further observed that in fact the resignation and voluntarily retirement only bring about the break of contract between the employee and employer, at the wish of the employee. There cannot be any difference between the two modes of relinquishment of service by an employee. The same view has been taken by Apex Court in the case of Asgar Ibrahim Amin� Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India reported in 2015 (6) AWC 5829 (SC), relevant paragraph 13 is quoted as under:-
"13. The Appellant ought not to be deprived of pension benefits merely because he styled his termination of services as "resignation" or because there was no provision to retire voluntarily at that time. The commendable objective of the Pension Rule is to extend benefits to a class of people to tide over the crisis and vicissitudes of old age, and if there are some inconsistencies between the statutory provisions and the avowed objective of the statute so as to discriminate between the beneficiaries within the class, the end of justice obligates us to palliate the differences between the two and reconcile them as far as possible. We would be failing in our duty, if we go by the letter and not by the laudatory spirit of statutory provisions and the fundamental rights guaranteed Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.:
Following the law laid down by the Division bench of this Court, the petitioner who had resigned in the year 2003 after rendering 30 years of service in the school namely Shiv Charan Das Kanhaiya Lal Inter College, Allahabad cannot be denied benefit of retirement and is held entitled for retirement benefit including pension as per the pension Rules, 1964. The respondent-authorities are directed to compute the retiral dues of the petitioner including pension in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks and make the actual payment immediately thereafter.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 16.8.2016
Mini
