Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner was in service, under the United India Life Unit, as a Sweeper. Thereafter, he was transferred to Life Insurance Corporation of India, as a Sweeper, on a permanent basis. He was in continuous service for a period of 25 years and retired from service, voluntarily, on medical grounds, in the year 1976, as per the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. Even though, the petitioner had missed the chance of applying for ex-gratia payment, in lieu of pension, applicable to those who had retired prior to 1. 86, he had applied for the same, on 17. 2002, based on the relaxation made thereafter. 3. It has been further stated that the petitioner had been denied the payment of ex-gratia, vide letter, dated 18. 2002, Ref:OS/Pension Cell/608, on the ground that it is not admissible to those who had resigned from service. Since Rule 19(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, provides for retirement before attaining superannuation, the respondent cannot term the voluntary retirement of the petitioner as resignation. Therefore, the petitioner had submitted a representation, dated 210. 2002. The respondent, vide letter, dated 111. 2002, in Ref:OS/Pension Cell/835, had held that the petitioner is not eligible for the ex gratia payment. .4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent denying the averments made on behalf of the petitioner. It has been stated that the respondent Corporation had introduced a scheme for ex gratia payment, in lieu of pension, in Ref:P/LR/A/G/345/ex gratia, to the surviving employees of Life Insurance Corporation, who had retired prior to 1986. The said scheme was also approved by the Government of India, by an order, dated 5. 99, No.2(8)/Ins./III/98. 5. It has been further stated that, according to the Circular Ref:PER/A/G/345/Ex-gratia, dated 27. 99, ex gratia payment was not admissible to those who were dismissed or removed from the services of the Corporation/Company and also to those who have resigned from the services of the Corporation/Company. The petitioner, who was originally employed in the erstwhile United India Life Unit, had been transferred to Life Insurance Corporation of India, on its nationalisation in the year 1956. The petitioner, who was originally employed in the erstwhile United India Life Unit, had been transferred to Life Insurance Corporation of India, on its nationalisation in the year 1956. The statement of the petitioner that he had voluntarily retired from the service of the respondent Corporation is false. Further, the claim made by the petitioner that he had retired from the service, voluntarily, on medical grounds, in the year 1976, as per the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, is incorrect. In fact, there is no provision in the said regulations, providing for voluntary retirement. 6. From the records available, it has been found that the writ petitioner has resigned from service, on 76. Since the scheme for ex gratia payment is not applicable to those who had resigned from service, the petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit. Further, the petitioner is not a member of the Life Insurance fund as he was a transferred employee from the United India Life Unit. Regulation 19(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, was applicable only to the transferred employees of the erstwhile Oriental Insurance Corporation Employees, who were members of the Life Insurance Fund. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner has been in continuous service for a period of 25 years and he had voluntarily retired from service in the year 1976. He has not resigned from his service, as alleged by the respondent Corporation. The respondent has denied ex-gratia payment to the petitioner, in lieu of pension, without issuing a speaking order. .8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable, as he has no right to claim ex gratia payment, in lieu of pension, as the scheme does not apply to those employees who were dismissed, terminated or removed from service and to those who had resigned from the service. The Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Government of India, by its letter, dated 5. 99, had approved the proposal regarding ex gratia relief to those who had retired from the Life Insurance Corporation prior to 1. The Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Government of India, by its letter, dated 5. 99, had approved the proposal regarding ex gratia relief to those who had retired from the Life Insurance Corporation prior to 1. 86 and that the ex-gratia payment was not admissible to those who were dismissed or removed from the service of the Corporation/Company and also to those who have resigned from the Corporation/Company. Therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for the ex gratia payment, as claimed by him. Further, the petitioner was not a member of the scheme providing for ex-gratia relief. In fact, the petitioner had resigned from his service, on 76. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent had further submitted that Regulation 19 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, was notified in the Gazette of India, dated 21. 77, and it is not applicable to the petitioner who had resigned from service on 76. Further, the proviso to Regulation 19(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, provides that an employee, who is a member of any approved superannuation fund, as defined in clause (a) of Section 58-N of the Indian Incomes Tax Act, 1922 and which has been recognized and allowed to be continued by the Corporation, shall be permitted, upon request, to retire before the date of retirement specified in the sub-regulation, either (a) on completion of 25 years of service or (b) on completion of 20 years of service, provided he has reached the age of 50 or (c) on completion of 20 years of service, if he is incapacitated for further active service. Since the petitioner is not a member of any approved superannuation fund, he does not become eligible for the payment of ex-gratia amount, as claimed by him. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned letter of the respondent, dated 111. 2002. It is seen that the petitioner is not eligible for payment of ex gratia amount, as claimed by him, since he is not a member of the scheme proposed for retired employees. 2002. It is seen that the petitioner is not eligible for payment of ex gratia amount, as claimed by him, since he is not a member of the scheme proposed for retired employees. As the petitioner had resigned from his service, he is disqualified from the benefits of the scheme. The petitioner having resigned from service, on 5. 76, Regulation 19 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, would not confer the benefit on the petitioner, as claimed by him. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.