ORDER : R.M. Doshit, J. 1. Heard learned advocates for the parties. The petitioner, who was serving as Development Officer under the respondent Corporation, after completion of 20 years' service, tendered resignation on 10th August, 1992. Said resignation was accepted under communication dated 8th September, 1992 and the petitioner was relieved from his duties with effect from 10th September, 1992. 2. It appears that after the petitioner resigned from service, the Government of India in its Ministry of Finance in exercise of powers conferred upon it under Section 48 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956 has made rules which are known as Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees') Pension Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") Under Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules, the Rules have been made applicable to the employees who were in service of the Corporation on or after 1st January, 1986 but had retired before 1st day of November, 1993 and who, inter alia, exercised option in writing to become members of the fund. Pursuant to the said Notification, the petitioner who had resigned from service with effect from 10th September, 1992 submitted his option to become member of the Employees' Pension Fund. He, however, has not deposited the amount of contribution to the provident fund and the interest thereon as required under rule 3(1)(c) of the Rules. The petitioner has now preferred this petition and has claimed that he had taken voluntary retirement on completion of 20 years' service in the Corporation which became effective on 10th September, 1992. He, thus, having retired from the service of the Corporation before 1st November, 1993, and having opted for being a member of the pension fund, he should be paid pension and other retirement benefits due and payable to him. 3. In response to the notice issued by this Court, learned Advocate Mr. A.K. Clerk has appeared for the Corporation. He has submitted that the petitioner has never retired from service and in fact, he had resigned from service. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to pension. He has referred to rule 23 of the said rules. Rule 23 provides, inter alia, that the resignation of an employee from the service of the Corporation shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to pension. He has referred to rule 23 of the said rules. Rule 23 provides, inter alia, that the resignation of an employee from the service of the Corporation shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. He, therefore, contended that since the petitioner has resigned from service, his service prior to the date of resignation cannot be treated as a qualifying service for the purpose of pension. He has also relied upon regulations 18 and 19 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. Rule 18 provides for modes of termination of service of an employee while rule 19, inter alia, provides for voluntary retirement of an employee. Evidently, the petitioner has resigned from service and has received the amount of his provident fund alongwith the contribution made by the Corporation and the interest accrued thereon. The petitioner having resigned from service, is not entitled to receive pensionary benefits under the Rules. Petitioner's claim for pension is frivolous and has rightly been rejected. Petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. Petitioner shall bear costs of this petition. Advocate's fee, for the purpose of costs, is quantified at Rs. 2,500/-. Notice is discharged. Petition dismissed.