Supreme Court of India
SHASHIKALA DEVIversusCENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 1045
- Decided
- 17 December 2014
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- T S THAKUR
Holding
The employee's letter was a request for voluntary retirement, not a resignation, and he was entitled to pensionary benefits under the pension regulations.
Summary
The widow of a bank clerk who had served for over 34 years filed a petition after the bank treated his October 8, 2007 letter as a resignation, thereby forfeiting his pension. The Supreme Court examined whether the letter was a resignation or a request for voluntary retirement under the Central Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. It held that the employee, suffering from serious medical ailments, intended to seek premature/voluntary retirement, not to resign, and that the regulations entitled him to pension after 20 years of qualifying service. The Court emphasized that pension is a statutory right, not a bounty, and a waiver of such right must be clear, unequivocal and conscious, which was absent here. Consequently, the bank was directed to treat the letter as a notice of voluntary retirement and to release the retiral benefits, including pension, to the appellant within six months, with interest for delay.
Issues considered
- The nature of the employee's October 8, 2007 letter: resignation or request for voluntary retirement.
- Whether the employee was entitled to pensionary benefits despite the bank's classification of the letter as a resignation.
- Whether the employee's conduct amounted to a waiver of his statutory pension rights.
- Interpretation of Central Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, especially Regulation 29(2) and Regulation 22.
Legislation cited
- Central Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995s. Regulation 14, s. Regulation 22, s. Regulation 28, s. Regulation 29(1), s. Regulation 29(2), s. Regulation 29(3)(a)
Subjects
pensionvoluntary retirementresignationservice lawwaiver of rightsstatutory interpretationbank employee benefitsCentral Bank of India
Judgment
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 868
A SHASHIKALA DEVI
v.
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
B (Civil Appeal No. 11488 of2014)
DECEMBER 17, 2014
[T. S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
c Service Law:
Voluntary retirement - Bank employee -After 31 years
of service tendered resignation from service on account of
medical ground - Resignation accepted resulting in forfeiture
D of the entire service rendered by him and disentitling him to
claim any pensionary benefit - Whether the letter, was in
essence a letter seeking pre-mature retirement or a letter of
resignation - Held: The employee was qualified to receive
pension in terms of Service Regulations - He was also
E entitled to seek voluntary retirement and not resignation -
Direction to employer-Bank to release the retiral benefits to
the employee - Central Bank of India (Employees) Pension
Regulations, 1995- Regulation 29(2).
Pension - Pension since is not a bounty, but a right
F which is acquired by long service, the Court will be slow in
presuming that the employee intended to waive or abandon
without any cogent reason.
Waiver - Of legally enforceable right - When
G admissible - Held: For waiver of legally enforceable right, it
is necessary that the same is clear and unequivocal,
conscious and with full knowledge of the consequences.
H
868
SHASHIKALA DEVI v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 869
Interpretation of Statutes- While interpreting a statute, A
court to keep the legislative intent in mind and eschew an
interpretation which tends to restrict, narrow down or defeat
its beneficial provisions - The beneficial provisions of a
Pension Scheme or Pension Regulations should be
interpreted liberally so as to promote the object underlying B
that, rather than denying benefits due to beneficiaries -
Service Law- Pension.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. An employee who has completed
c
twenty years of qualifying service is entitled to seek
voluntary retirement from service of the Bank provided
he gives a notice of not less than three months in writing
to the appointing authotity in that regard. In terms of 0
proviso to Regulation 29(2) of Central Bank of India
(Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995, ifthe appointing
authority does not refuse to grant permission for
retirement before the expiry of the period specified in
the said notice, the retirement becomes effective from E
the date of the expiry of the said period. In terms of
Regulation 29(3)(a), the appointing authority is
competent to curtail the period of notice of three months
in appropriate cases subject to the condition that the
employee shall not apply for commutation of his pension F
before the expiry of the notice period. [Para 6][880-G-H;
881-A-B]
1.2. In the present case, the deceased employee
had rendered nearly 34 years of service in the G
respondent-Bank. He was, therefore, qualified to receive
pension in terms of the Regulations applicable to him. It
is also evident from a reading of Regulation 29 that the
deceased-employee was entitled to seek voluntary
retirement in terms of Regulation 29 for he had completed H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.
A more than twenty years of service by the 81h October,
2007. As on 81h October, 2007 the deceased-employee
was entitled either to resign from service or to seek
premature retirement in terms of Reguration 29.
[Para 7][881-C-E]
B
1.3. Whether or not a given communication is a
letter of resignation simplictor or can as well be treated
to be a request for voluntary retirement will always
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case
c and the provisions of the Rules applicable. That is, so
even when this Court has always maintained a clear
distinction between "resignation" and "voluntary
retirement". [Para 7][881-E-G]
· UCO Bank and Ors. v. Sanwar Mal (2004) 4 SCC
D 412: 2004 (2) SCR 1125; Reserve Bankoflndia
and Anr. v. CECIL Dennis Solomon and Anr.
(2004) 9 sec 461 : 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 465 -
referred to.
E 1.4. In the present case, the employee had chosen
to leave the employment not because of any disciplinary
or other action proposed against him or any order of
transfer or posting with which he was unhappy or
because any proceedings had been started that could
F have visited him with any civil consequence if he had
continued in service, but because of his physical inability
to continue in service on account of diseases with which
he was stricken. This is evident from the fact that not
only in the letter, but also in documents enclosed
G thernwith the employee has laid great stress on the
reasons for leaving the service prematurely. Thus, what
the employee intended to do by his letter dated 81h
OctOber, 2007 was to seek voluntary retirement and not
resignation from his employment. [Paras 12 and 14]
H [886-E-H; 887-A;888-C]
SHASHIKALA DEVI v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 871
2.1. Pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of A
grace but is a payment for past services rendered by
the employee. If pension is not a bounty, but a right which
the employee acquires on account of long years of
sincere and good work done by him, the Court will be
slow in presuming that the employe.e intended to waive B
or abandon such a valuable right without any cogent
reason. At any rate, there ought to be some compelling
circumstance to suggest that the employee had
consciously given up the right and benefit, which he had
acquired so assiduously. Far from the material on record C
suggesting any such conscious surrender
abandonment or waiver of the right to retiral benefit
including pension, the material placed on record clearly
suggests that the employee had no source of income or D
sustenance except the benefit that he had earned for
long years of service. This is evident from a reading of
the letter in question, in which the employee seeks
release of his retiral benefits at the earliest to enable him
to undergo medical treatment that he requires. The letter E
lays emphasise on the fact that for his sustenance, the
employee is dependent entirely on such benefits.
[Paras 7 and 14][882-D; 888-E-H; 889-A-B]
D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India (1983) 1
SCC 305 : 1983 (2) SCR 165; Chairman F
Railway Board and Ors. v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah
and Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 623 : 1997 (3) Suppl.
SCR 63; SudhirChandra Sarkarv. Tata Iron and
Steel Co. Ltd. and Ors. (1984) 3 SCC 369: 1984
G
(3) SCR 325 - relied on.
2.2. It is difficult to attribute to the employee the
intention to give up what was rightfully his, in terms of
retiral benefits, when such benefits were the only source
H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.
A not only for his survival but for his medical treatment
that he so urgently required. For a waiver of a legally
enforceable right earned by an employee, it is necessary
that the same is clear and unequivocal, conscious and
with full knowledge of the consequences. No such
B intention can be gathered from the facts and
circumstances of the instant case. The employee's
subsequent letters and communication cannot be said
to be an afterthought. Being proximate in point of time
letter dated 8th October, 2007 must be treated to be a part
C of the subsequent communication making the
employee's intentions clear, at least for purposes of
determining the true intention underlying the act of the
employee. [Para 14][889-B-E]
D 3.1. While interpreting a statute, the Court ought to
keep the legislative intent in mind and eschew an
interpretation which tends to restrict, narrow down or
defeat its beneficial provisions. [Para 8][883-D·E]
E S. Appukuttan v. Thundiyil Janaki Amma and Anr.
(1988) 2 SCC 372: 1988 (2) SCR 661; Vatan
Mal v. Kai/ash Nath (1989) 3 SCC 79: 1989 (2)
SCR 192; Employees' State Insurance
Corporation v. R.K. Swamy and Ors. (1994) 1
F SCC 445: 1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 461; Union of
India and Anr. v. Pradeep Kumari and Ors. (1995)
2 SCC 736: 1995 (2) SCR 703 - relied on.
3.2 The beneficial provisions of a Pension Scheme
G or Pension Regulations have been interpreted rather
liberally so as to promote the object underlying the same
rather than denying benefits due to beneficiaries under
such provisions. In cases where an employee has the
requisite years of qualifying service for grant of pension,
H
SHASHIKALA DEVI v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA. 873
and where he could under the service conditions
I
A
applicable seek voluntary retirement, the benefit of
pension has been allowed by treating the purported
resignation to be a request for voluntary retirement.
(Para 15](889-E-G]
B
Sudhir Chandra Sarkar v. Tata Iron and Steel
Company Ltd. and Ors. (1984) 3 SCC 369: 1984
(3) SCR 325; Union of India and Ors. v. Lt. Col.
P.S. Bhargava (1997) 2 SCC 28: 1997 (1) SCR
130; Sheet Kumar Jain v. New India Assurance c
Company Limited and Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 197 :
2011 (9) SCR 57 4 - relied on.
4. The respondent-Bank is directed to treat letter
dated 81h October, 2007 as a notice for voluntary
0
retirement of the employee and for curtailment for three
months notice period. Depending upon the view the
competent authority may take on the question of
curtailment of the notice period and/or deduction of three
months salary from out of the retiral benefits of the E
deceased-employee, the deceased-employee's claim for
payment of retiral benefits due under the relevant rules
including pension shall be processed and released in
favour of the appellant-widow as expeditiously as
possible but not later than six months from the date a F
copy of this order is served upon the bank. In the event
of the Bank's failure to comply with the directions within
six months, the amount payable to the employee and
after his death his widow, shall start earning interest@
10% p.a. from the date tlie period of six months expires. G
[Para 19](893-F-H; 894-A-B]
Case Law Reference:
2004 (2) SCR 1125 referred to Para 7
H
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12014113 s~c.R.
A 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 465 referred to Para 7
1983 (2) SCR 165 relied on Para
19~17 (3) Suppl. SCR 63 relied on Para 7
B 1984 (3) SCR 325 relied on Para 7
1988 (2) SCR 661 relied on Para 8
1989 (2) SCR 192 relied on Para 9
c 1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 461 relied on Para 10
1995 (2) SCR 703 relied on Para 11
1984 (3) SCR 325 relied on Para 16
1997 (1) SCR 130 relied on Para 16
D
2011 (9) SCR 574 relied on Para 18
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
11488 of 2014.
E From the Judgment and Order dated 11-11-2011 of the
High Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 1998 of 2010.
Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Hitendra Nath Rath, Advs. for the
Appellant.
F
Shish Wad, Ms. Jayshree Wad, Mis J.S. Wad & Co.,
Advs., for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G T. S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The short question that falls for our consideration in
this appeal by special leave is whether letter dated 81h October,
2007 sent by late Shri Mauzi Ram, husband of the appellant,
H
SHASHIKALA DEVI v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 875
[T. S. THAKUR, J.]
was in essence a letter seeking pre-mature retirement on A
medical grounds or a letter of resignation from the service of
the respondent-bank. The High Court has while dismissing the
writ petition and the appeal filed by the deceased-employee
declared that the letter in question was a letter of resignation
that resulted in forfeiture of the entire service rendered by the B
employee disentitling him to claim any pensionary benefits.
The correctness of that view is under challenge in this appeal
filed by the widow of the deceased employee who passed
away during the pendency of the proceedings before the High
Court. Since the answer to the question so much depends C
upon the circumstances in which the letter referred to above
was written by the deceased-employee, we may as well
reproduce the same in extenso:
"Patna D
Date: 09. 10.07
To
The Zonal Manager, E
Central Bank of India,
. Zonal Office,
Patna. F
Though : Proper Channel
Sub: Resignation from the service of bank
Respected Sir,
G
With due respect I have to submit the following reasons
which has compelled me to resign from my service.
H
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.
A In the year 2002 I was attacked with severe carnio
cervical spondylisis problem and I was referred to Dr.
P.S. Ramani Lilavati Hospital, Mumbai where I had to
go under surgical treatment. Within a month time I
suffered acute prostate problem also for which I had to
B go for operation at Sheela Urology Centre Patna by Dr.
S.S. Ambasta. But I could not get rid of my suffering of
and on paid and giddiness goes acute. As a result I
have been finding myself unable to move to the extent
of discharging routine duty.
c .
Under the circumstances I had to remain on leave on
many occasions even on loss of duty.
Of late prostate problem has further aggravated acutely.
Presently I am under the treatment of Dr. S.S. Ambasta
D
at Patna. Acute Cervical disease coupled with prostate
treatment of Dr. S.S. Ambasta at Patna. Acute Cervical
disease coupled with prostate complication has virtually
make me totally disabled even to perform my routine
E work.
In support of my submission I enclose herewith Xerox
copies of medical prescriptions of my treatment at
Lilavati Hospital, Mumbai and of Urology Centre, Patna
and Doctor's prescription towards my present treatment.
F
Under the above stated circumstances of my health
which has made me incapacitated for rendering service
in the bank. This in view I tender mv resignation from
the service of bank. I urge upon vour honour to be kind
G to accept mv resignation from service at the earliest so
that I may be able to go for advance treatment out of
my terminal benefits which is the only left out financial
resource for my livelihood and medical treatment. I with
H
SHASHIKALA DEVI v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 877
[T. S. THAKUR, J.]
my family members will be highly obliged for your kind A
and favourable consideration on my aforesaid request.
Thanking you,
B
Yours faithfully,
(Mauzi Ram)
Clerk,
c
Rajbanshi Nagar,
Patna."
(emphasis supplied)
D
3. A plain reading of the above makes it manifest that
the employee sought relief from the duties attached to his job
on account of his medical condition that had rendered him
physically disabled to which he has made extensive reference
in the letter itself. The letter relies upon and encloses copies E
of medical prescriptions from the hospital where the employee
was undergoing treatment in support of his prayer. It -.yas
because of his incapacity arising out of his failing health that
the employee prayed for being relieved of his service in the
bank. What is important is that the employee had prayed for F
release of his terminal benefits to enable him to undergo
treatment for his illness. The letter mentions that his terminal
benefits are the only financial support for his livelihood and the
treatment that he required.
G
4. The bank treating the letter of the employee as a letter
of resignation from service relieved him apparently because
the expression used in the letter was resignation which
obviously meant that no financial burden would fall upon the
H
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.
A bank in terms of retrial benefits otherwise payable to an
employee who has served for the requisite number of years
entitling him to retirement.
5. Grant or refusal of pension to the employees of the
8 respondent-bank is regulated by Central Bank of India
(Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995. Chapter IV of the said
Regulations deals with qualifying service. Regulation 14 of the
Regulations appearing in that chapter postulates that an
employee who has rendered a minimum of ten years of service
c in the bank on the date of his retirement or on the date on
which he is deemed to have retired shall qualify for pension.
Regulation 22 deals with forfeiture of service and, inter alia,
stipulates that resignation, dismissal, removal or termination
of an employee from the service of the Bank shall entail
D forfeiture of his entire past service. Chapter V of the Regulations
deals with Classes of Pension. While Regulation 28 envisages
superannuation pension, Regulation 29 deals with pension on
voluntary retirement and read as under:
E "29. Pension on Voluntary Retirement:-
(1) On or after the 1s1 day of November, 1993, at any
time after an employee has completed twenty years of
qualifying service he may, by giving notice of not less
than three months in writing to the appointing authority
F
retire from service"
Provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an
employee who is on deputation or on study leave
abroad unless after having been transferred or having
G returned to India he has resumed charge of the post in
India and has served for a period of not less than one
year;
H
SHASHIKALA DEVI v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 879
[T. S. THAKUR, J.]
Provided further that this sub-regulation shall not apply A
to an employee who seeks retirement from service for
being absorbed permanently in an autonomous body
or a public sector understanding or company or
institution or body, whether incorporated or not to which
he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary B
retirement.
Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to an
employee who is deemed to have retired in accordance
with clause (1) of regulation 2. C
2. the notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-
regulation (1) shall require acceptance by the
appointing authority:
Provided that where the appointing authority does not D
refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the
expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the
retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry
of the said period.
E
(3) (a) An employee referred to in sub-regulation
(1) may make a request to the appointing authority
retirement of less than three months giving reasons
therefor:
F
(b) On receipt of a request under clause (a), the
appointing authority may, subject to the provisions
of sub-regulation (2), consider such request for the
curtailment of the period of notice of three months
on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of G
the period of notice will not cause any administrative
inconvenience, the appointing authority may relax
the requirement of notice of three months on the
H
880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.
A condition that the employee shall not· apply for
commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry
of the notice of three months.
(4) An employee, who has elected to retire under this
B regulation and has given necessary notice to that
effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded
from withdrawing his notice except with the specific
approval of such authority:
Provided that the request for such withdrawal
c shall be made before the intended date of his
retirement.
(5) The qualifying service of an employee retiring
voluntarily under this regulation shall be increased
D by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the
condition that the total qualifying service rendered
by such employee shall not in any case exceed thirty-
three years and it does not take him beyond the date
of superannuation.
E
(6) The pension of an employee retiring under this
regulation shall be based on the average
emoluments as _defined under clause (d) of
regulation (2) of these regulations and the increase
F not exceeding five years in his qualifying service,
shall not entitle him to any notional fixation of pay
for the purpose of calculating his pension."
6. From a reading of the above, it is evident that an
G employee who has completed twenty years of qualifying service
is entitled to seek voluntary retirement from service of the bank
provided he gives a notice of not less than three months in
writing to the appointing authority in that regard. What is
important is that in terms of proviso to Regulation 29(2), if the
H
SHASHIKALADEVI v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 881
[T. S. THAKUR, J'.]
appointing autho~ity does not refuse to grant permission for A
retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said
notice, the retirement becomes effective from the date of the
expiry of the said period. It is also noteworthy that in terms of
Regulation 29(3){a) the appointing authority is competent to
curtail the period of notice of three months in appr<?priate cases B
subject to the condition that the employee shall not apply for
commutation of his pension before the expiry of the notice
period.
7. In the case at hand, Mauzi Ram-the deceased c
employee had rendered nearly 34 years of service-in the
respondent-bank. He was, therefore, qualified to receive
pension in terms of the Regulations applicable to him. It is also
evident from a reading of Regulation 29 that the deceased-
employee was entitled to seek voluntary retirement in terms of D
Regulation 29 for he had completed more than twenty years of
service by the 81h October, 2007. As on Sill October, 2007 the
deceased-employee was entitled either to resign from service
or to seek premature retirement in terms of Regulation 29
(supra). The question in that backdrop is whether letter dated· E
8th October, 2007 was a letter of resignation simplictor or could
as well be treated to be a letter seeking voluntary retirement.
The High Court, as seen earlier, has taken the view that the
letter was one of resignation that resulted in the forfeiture of
past service under Regulation 22 of the Regulations. The High F
Court appears to have been impressed by the use of the word
"resignation" in the employee's letter dated 81h October, 2007.
The use of the expression "resignation", however, is not, in our
opinion, conclusive. That is, in our opinion, so even when this G
Court has always maintained a clear distinction between
"resignation" and "voluntary retirement". Whether or not a given
communication is a letter of resignation simplictor or can as
well be treated to be a request for voluntary retirement will
·H
882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.
A always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case
and the provisions of the Rules applicable. The distinction
between the expressions "resignation" and "voluntary
retirement" was elaborately discussed by this Court in UCO
Bank and Ors. v. Sanwar Mal (2004) 4 SCC 412 where this
B Court was examining the provisions of UCO Bank
(Employees') Pension Regulations 1995 applicable to a bank
employee who had resigned from service after giving an
advance notice to the appointing authority. So also in Reserve
Bank of India and Anr. v. CECIL Dennis Solomon and
C Anr. (2004) 9 sec 461 this Court was considering the
provisions of the Reserve Bank of India ~ension Regulations,
1990 while it made a distinction between what is resignation
on the one hand and voluntary retirement on the other. At the
same time a long line of decisions have recognised that
0
pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace but is a
payment for past services rendered by the employee.
Decisions of this Court in D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of
India (1983) 1SCC305, and Chairman Railway Board and
E Ors. v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 623,
are clear pronouncements on the subject. Reference may also
be made to Sudhir Chandra Sarkar v. Tata Iron and Steel
Co. Ltd. and Ors. (1984) 3 SCC 369 where this Court
observed:
F "18. For centuries the courts swung in favour of the view
that pension is either a bounty or a gratuitous payment
for loyal service rendered depending upon the sweet
will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right
and therefore, no right to pension can be enforced
G
through court. This view held the field and a suit to
recover pension was held not maintainable. With the
modern notions of social justice and social security,
concept of pension underwent a radical change and it
H
SHASHIKALA DEVI v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 883
[T. S. THAKUR, J.]
is now we/I-settled that eension is a right and e_a'i_ment A
of it does not dee.end ueon the discretion of the
emelo1f.er. nor can it be denied at the sweet will or fanc'i.
of the eme_IO'f.er. Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar
(197112 SCC 330, State of Puniab v. Igbal Singh (19761
2 SCC 1 and D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (19831 1 B
sec 305. If eension which is the retiral benefit as a
measure of social securit't. can be recovered through
civil suit, we see no iustification in treating gratuit't. on a
different footing. Pension and gratuity in the matter of
retiral benefits and for recovering the same must be c
put on par."
(emphasis supplied)
8. It is also well settled by several decisions of this Court
D
that while interpreting a statute the Court ought to keep the
legislative intent in mind and eschew an interpretation which
tends to restrict, narrow down or defeat its beneficial provisions..
In S. Appukuttan v. Thundiyil Janaki Amma and Anr. (1988)
2 SCC 372 this Court observed: E
"16. After the arguments were concluded, learned
counsel for the respondents have circulated a copy of
the judgment of this Court in CA No. 165 of 1974 etc.
K.M. Mathew v. Hamsa Haji (1987) 3 SCC 326 •
F
delivered on 29-4-1987 wherein Section 7-0 of the
Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963 as amended by the
Kera/a Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 has been
interpreted as conferring benefit thereunder qnly on
persons whose occupation of the· private forests or
G
unsurveyed lands had a lawful origin and not on
persons in unlawful occupation based on trespass or
forcible and unlawful entry. We have carefully
considered the judgment and find that the
H
884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.
A pronouncement therein does not in any way lend
support to the contentions of the respondents herein.
The scheme of Sections 7-A, 7-8, 7-C, 7-D, 8 and 9 of
the Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963 is entirely different
and this position is succinctly brought out by the
B following passage in the decision referred to above. The
court had summed up the scheme of the Act in the
following words: (SCC p. 330, para 5)
On a careful scrutiny of the aforesaid provisions, it
c becomes abundantly clear that the intention of the
legislature was to grant protection only to persons
whose possession had a lawful origin in the sense
that they had either bona fide believed the lands to
be government's land of which they could later seek
D assignment or had taken the lands on lease from
persons whom they bona fide believed to be
competent to grant such leases or had come into
possession with the intention of attorning to the lawful
owners or on the basis of arrangements like varam
E etc. which were only in the nature of licences and fell
short of a leasehold right. It was not within the
contemplation of the legislature to confer the benefit
of protection on persons who had wilfully trespassed
• upon lands belonging to others and whose
F occupation was unlawful in its origin. The expression
"in occupation" occurring in Section 7-D must be
construed as meaning "in lawful occupation".
9. Again in Vatan Mal v. Kai/ash Nath (1989) 3 SCC
G 79, this Court observed:
"9. ....... The intention of the legislature to confer the
benefit of Section 13-A to all tenants, provided actual
eviction had not taken place, could further be seen by
H
SHASHIKALA DEVI v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 885
[T. S. THAKUR, J.]
the terms of sub-clause (c). Under sub-clause (c) the A
provisions of sub-clauses (a) and (b) have been made
applicable mutatis mutandis to all appeals or
applications for revision preferred or made after the
commencement of the amending Ordinance and the
only stipulation contained is that the tenant preferring B
an appeal or an application for revision should apply
to the court within a period of thirty days from th.e date
of presentation of the memorandum of appeal or the
application for revision for giving him the benefit of
Section 13-A .. ... " c
10. Reference may also be made to Employees' State
Insurance Corporation v. R.K. Swamy and Ors. (1994) 1
SCC 445 whe.re this Court observed:
D
"14. There is no doubt at all that the said Act is
beneficent legislation. If, therefore, it is reasonably
possible so to construe the word "shop" as to include
the activity of an advertising agency within it, that
construction must be preferred." E
11. To the same effect is a later decision of this Court in
Union of India and Anr. v. Pradeep Kumari and Ors. (1995)
2 SCC 736 where this Court declared:
"8. We .may, at the outset, state that having regard to F
the Statement of Objects and Reasons, referred to
earlier, the object underlying the enactment of Section
28-A is to remove inequality in the payment of
compensation for same or similar quality of land arising
on account of inarticulate and poor people not being G
able to take advantage of the right of reference to the
civil court under Section 18 of the Act. This is sought to
be achieved by providing an opportunity to all
aggrieved parties whose land is covered by the same
H
886 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.
A notification to seek redetermination once any of them
has obtained orders for payment of higher
compensation from the reference court under Section
18 of the Act. Section 28-A is, therefore, in the nature of
a beneficent provision intended to remove inequality
B and to give relief to the inarticulate and poor people
who are not able to take advantage of right of reference
to. the civil court under Section 18 of the Act. In relation
to beneficent legislation. the law is well-settled that while
construing the provisions of such a legislation the court
c should adopt a construction which advances the policy
of the legislation to extend the benefit rather than a
construction which has the effect of curtailing the benefit
conferred by it. The provisions of Section 28-A should,
therefore, be construed keeping in view the object
D
underlying the said provision."
(emphasis supplied)
12. Let us now examine the true purport of the letter
E submitted by the deceased-employee in the light of the above
principles. Two distinct aspects stand out from the record. The
first is that the deceased-employee had served for more than
34 years in the bank and was, therefore, entitled to seek
voluntary retirement if he chose to leave prematurely. The
F second aspect which is equally important is that t~e employee
had chosen to leave the employment not because of any
disciplinary or other action proposed against him or any order
of transfer or posting with which he was unhappy or because
any proceedings had been started that could have visited him
G with any civil consequence if he had continued in service, but
because of his physical inability to continue in service on
account of diseases with which he was stricken. This is evident
from the fact that not only in the letter, but also in documents
enclosed therewith the employee has laid great stress on the
H
SHASHIKALA DEVI v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 887
[T. S. THAKUR, J.]
reasons for leaving the service prematurely. No such reasons A
were necessary if the employee actually intended to resign in
the true sense of that term. Reasons why he was quitting were
obviously meant to support his case that he was doing so under
the compulsion of the circumstances. This is evident from letter
. dated 23'd November, 2007 from the Regional Manager which B
has recognised the poor health condition of the deceased-
employee and sanction.ad 165 days without pay leave in his
favour. It is also evidentfrom letter dated 29th November, 2007
by which the acceptance of the request of the employee was
communicated to him that the employer had taken note of his C
failing health, expressed the management's sympathy with him
and wishing him early recovery from his illness. The letter
recognises the commitment of the employee to his duties and
the contribution made by him in the growth of the organisation. D
To that extent there is thus no communication gap between
the. employee and the employer. The employee's case,
however, is that all that he intended to do was to seek
premature/voluntary retirement from service. This is,
accordingly to the employee, evident also from his letter dated E
18th December, 2007 addressed within three weeks of the
acceptance of the request by the bank. In the said letter the
deceased-employee, inter a/ia, said: ,
"As such, as per the said representation I requested to
accept my resignation from the service. The whole F
reason and purpose, which I have submitted and stated
through my said representation and my left over service
of one and half year have forced my conscience to seek
voluntary retirement from the service and not G.
resignation from the service in its literal meaning."
13. The letter once again enclosed with it medical
certificates and prescriptions in support of his request that the
letter written earlier and the expression used therein may be
H
888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 13 S.C.R.
A understood in the right spirit and terminal benefits released in
his favour. The refusal of the management of the bank to treat
letter dated 8th October, 2007 as a request for premature
retirement was conveyed to the employee on 24th June, 2008
in which the respondent-bank made reference to the decision
B of this Court in UCO Bank's case (supra) whereby Regulation
22 of the Pension Regulations was upheld by this Court.
14. When viewed in the backdrop of the above facts, it is
difficult to reject the contention urged on behalf of the appellant
c that what the deceased-employee intended to do by his letter
dated 8th October, 2007 was to seek voluntary retirement and
not resignation from his employment. We say so in the light of
several attendant circumstances. In the first place, the
employee at the time of his writing the letter dated 81h October,
D 2007 was left with just about one and a hC;llf years of service. It
will be too imprudent for anyone to suggest that a bank
employee who has worked with such commitment as earned
him the appreciation of the management would have so
thoughtlessly given up the retiral benefits in the form of pension
E etc. which he had earned on account of his continued
dedication to his job. If pension is not a bounty, but a right which
the employee acquires on account of long years of sincere
and ~iood work done by him, the Court will be slow in presuming
that the employee intended to waive or abandon such a
F valuable right without any cogent reason. At any rate there
ought to be some compelling circumstance to suggest that
the employee had consciously given up the right and benefit,
which he had acquired so assiduously. Far from the material
on record suggesting any such conscious surrender
G abandonment or waiver of the right to retiral benefit including
pension, we find that the material placed on record clearly
sug!~ests that the employee had no source of income or
sustenance except the benefit that he had earned for long years
H of service. This is evident from a reading of the letter dated 81h
SHASHIKALADEVI v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 889
[T. S. THAKUR, J.]
October, 2007 in which the employee seeks release of his A
retiral benefits at the earliest to enable him to undergo medical
treatment that he requires. The letter, as seen earlier, lays
emphasise on the fact that for his sustenance the employee is
dependent entirely on such benefits. It is in that view difficult
for us to attribute to the employee the intention to give up what B
was rightfully his in terms of retiral benefits, when such benefits
were the only source not only for his survival but for his medical
treatment that he so urgently required. For a waiver of a legally
enforceable right earned by an employee, it is necessary that
the same is clear and unequivocal, conscious and with full C
knowledge of the consequences. No such intention can be
gathered from the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
The employee's subsequent letters and communication which
are placed on record cannot be said to be an afterthought.
0
Being proximate in point of time letter dated 81h October, 2007
must be treated to be a part of the subsequent communication
making the employee's intentions clear, at least for purposes
of determining the true intention underlying the act of the
employee. E
15. It is, in. our opinion, abundantly clear that the beneficial
provisions of a Pension Scheme or Pension Regulations have
. been interpreted rather liberally so as to promote the object
underlying the same rather than denying benefits due to
beneficiqries under such provisions. In cases where an F
employee has the requisite years of qualifying service for grant
of pension, and where he could under the service conditions
applicable seek voluntary retirement, the benefit of pension
has been allowed by treating the purported resignation to be G
a request for voluntary retirement. We see no compelling
reasons for doing so even in the present case, which in our
opinion is in essence a case of the deceased employee
seeking voluntary retirement ratherthan resigning .
• H
890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.
A 16. We may at this stage refer to a few decisions of this
Court in which somewhat similar questions have been
examined and answered by this Court. In Sudhir Chandra
Sarkar v. Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. and Ors.
(1984) 3 SCC 369, a permanent uncovenanted employee of
B the company had served for 29 years whereafter he tendered
his resignation which the employer accepted unconditionally.
The Company's Retiring Gratuity Rules did not provide for
payment of gratuity to employees who resigned from service.
This Court while reversing the view taken by the High Court
C held that termination of service by resignation was tantamount
to retirement by resignation entitling the employee to retiral
benefits. The following passage is apposite in this regard:
"7. The contention of the respondent is that the plaintiff
D did not retire from service but he left the service of the
Company by resigning his post. This aspect to some
extent agitated the mind of the High Court. It may be
dealt with first. It is not only in dispute, but is in fact
conceded that the plaintiff did render continuous service
E from December 31, 1929 tiff August 31, 1959. On exact
computation, .the plaintiff rendered service for 29 years
and 8 months. Rule 6(a) which prescribed the eligibility
criterion for payment of gratuity provides that every
permanent unconvenanted employee of the Company
F whether paid on monthly, weekly or daily basis will be
eligible for retiring gratuity which shall be equal to half
a month's salary or wages for every completed year of
continuous service subject to a maximum of 20 years'
salary or wages in all provided that when an employee
G
dies, retires or is discharged under Rule 11 (2)(ii) and
(iii) before he has served the Company for a continuous
'Period of 15 years he shall be paid a gratuity at the rate
therein mentioned. The expression "retirement" has
H been defined in Rule 1(g) to mean "the termination of
SHASHIKALA DEVI v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 891
[T. S. THAKUR, J.]
service by reason of any cause other than removal by A
discharge due to misconduct". It is admitted that the
plaintiff was a permanent uncovenanted employee of
the Company paid on monthly basis and he rendered
service for over 29 years and his service came to an
end by reason of his tendering resignation which was B
unconditionally accepted. It is not suggested that he
was removed by discharge due to misconduct.
Unquestionably, therefore, the plaintiff retired from
service because by the letter Annexure 'B' dated August
26, 1959, the resignation tendered by the plaintiff as C
per his letter dated July 27, 1959 was accepted and he
was released from his service with effect from
September 1, 1959. The termination of service was thus
on account of resignation of the plaintiff being accepted D
by the respondent. The plaintiff has, within the meaning
of the expression, thus retired from service of the
respondent and he is qualified for payment of gratuity
in tl{:rms of Rufe 6."
17. In Union of India and Ors. v. Lt. Col. P.S. Bhargava E
(1997) 2 sec 28, this Court was dealing with a case where
the respondent was denied pension on the ground that he had
voluntarily retired from service. Dismissing the appeal filed
by the Union of India, this Court held that Regulation 16 of the
Pension Regulations applicable to the respondent did not deal F
with voluntary resignations and could not, therefore, be pressed
into service to deny pension to the respondent. This Court
said:
"19. Regulation 16 does not cover a case of voluntary G
resignation. Regulation 16(b) does refer to a case where
an officer who has to his credit the minimum period of
qualifying service being called upon to resign whose
pension can be reduced. Had the Regulations intended
H
892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.
A to take away the right of a person to the terminal
benefits on his voluntary resigning, then a specific
provision similar to Regulation 16(b) would have been
incorporated in the Regulations but this has not been
done. Once an officer has to his credit the minimum
B period of qualifying service, he earns a right to get
pension and as the Regulations stand, that right can
be taken away only if an order is passed under
Regulation 3 or 16. The cases of voluntary resignations
of officers, who have to their credit the minimum period
c of qualifying service are not covered by these two
Regulations and, therefore, such officers, who
voluntarily resign, cannot be automatically deprived of
the terminal benefits."
D 18. In Sheel Kumar Jain v. New India Assurance
Company Limited and Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 197, the facts
were somewhat similar to the case at hand. The appellant in
that case was an employee of an Insurance Company governed
by a Pension Scheme which provided, as in the case at hand,
E forfeiture of the entire service of an employee should he resign
from his employment. The appellant submitted a letter of
resignation which resulted in denial of his service benefits
under the scheme aforementioned. This Court, however, held
that since the employee had completed the qualifying service
F and was entitled to seek voluntary retirement under the scheme
he could not be said to have resigned so as to lose his pension.
This Court said:
"25. Para 22 of the 1995 Pension Scheme states that
G the resignation of an employee from the service of the
corporation or a company shall entail forfeiture of his
entire past service and consequently he shall not qualify
for pensionary benefits, but does not define the term
"resignation". Under sub-para (1) of Para 30 of the ·1995
H
SHASHIKALA DEVI v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 893
[T. S. THAKUR, J.]
Pension Scheme, an employee, who has completed A
20 years of qualifying service, may by giving notice of
not less than 90 days in writing to the appointing
authority retire from service and under sub-para (2) of
Para 30 of the 1995 Pension Scheme, the notice of
voluntary retirement shall require acceptance by the B
appointing authority. Since "voluntary retirement" unlike
"resignation" does not entail forfeiture of past services
and instead qualifies for pension, an employee to whom
Para 30 of the 1995 Pension Scheme applies. cannot
be said to have "resigned" from service. C
26. In the facts of the present case, we find that the
appellant had completed 20 years of qualifying service
and had given notice of not less than 90 days in writing
to the appointing authority of his intention to leave the D
service and the appointing authority had accepted
notice of the appellant and relieved him from service.
Hence, Para 30 of the 1995 Pension Scheme applied
to the appellant even though in his letter dated 16-9-
1991 to the General Manager of Respondent ·1 E
Company he had used the word "resign"."
19. In the result this appeal succeeds and is hereby
allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is,
hereby, set aside and the writ petition filed by the deceased- F
employee allowed with a direction to the respondent-bank to
treat letter dated Sth October, 2007 as a notice for voluntary
retirement of the employee and for curtailment for three months
notice period. Depending upon the view the competent
authority may take on the question of curtailment of the notice G
period and/or deduction of three months salary from out of the
retiral benefits of the deceased-employee, the deceased-
employee's claim for payment of retiral benefits due under the
relevant rules including pension shall be processed and
H
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.
A released in favour of the appellant-widow as expeditiously as
possible but not later than six months from the date a copy of
this order is served upon the bank. In the event of the bank's
failure to comply with the directions within six months as
indicated above, the amount payable to the employee and after
B his death his widow, shall start earning interest@ 10% p.a.
from the date the period of six months expires. The parties
are left to bear their own costs.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "pension"Sign in to search