Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2718 (RAJ)

Ramdayal Balai v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

2022-11-07

FARJAND ALI, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This intra court appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 18.10.2022, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant while imposing a cost of Rs.10,000/- with a direction to deposit the same within a period of four weeks with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as an Assistant (Clerk) with the respondent- insurance company since 14.11.1990. On 13.4.2009, the appellant moved an application before the respondent- insurance company seeking voluntary retirement from the services and on the very same day, he has also moved another application expressing his desire to resign from the services. The appellant was ultimately relieved from the services by the respondent-insurance company vide letter dated 22.6.2009 after he deposited due amount of housing loan to the tune of Rs.4,35,000/-. 3. The appellant, thereafter, made several communications to the respondent-insurance company demanding pension and commutation of pension, however, the respondent- insurance company has denied the same and being aggrieved with the action of the respondent-insurance company, the petitioner-appellant has filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge with a prayer for quashing of the order dated 4.3.2013, whereby the respondent-insurance company has denied pensionary benefits to him. The appellant has also prayed that a declaration may be issued to the effect that he is entitled for pension and commutation of pension under Para-14 of the Pension Scheme, 1995. Several other consequential reliefs were also claimed by the petitioner- appellant in the writ petition. 4. The claim of the appellant was refuted by the respondent-insurance company while taking a stand that as a matter of fact, the appellant has not been granted voluntary retirement but his resignation has been accepted and he was relieved from the services on account of acceptance of his resignation and not on account of acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement. It is also contended on behalf of the respondent-insurance company that the request of the appellant for voluntary retirement could not have been accepted by the competent authority because neither he had completed 20 years of service nor he has given 90 days notice as per Para-30 of Chapter-V of the Pension Scheme, 1995. 5. It is also contended on behalf of the respondent-insurance company that the request of the appellant for voluntary retirement could not have been accepted by the competent authority because neither he had completed 20 years of service nor he has given 90 days notice as per Para-30 of Chapter-V of the Pension Scheme, 1995. 5. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the provisions of the Pension Scheme, 1995 and the material placed on record by the parties concerned, has held that Para-14 of Chapter-IV of the Pension Scheme, 1995 does not apply to the present case as it is only applicable upon an employee who is retiring from services on attaining the age of superannuation. It is also held that Para-30 of Chapter-V of the Pension Scheme, 1995 deals with the right of an employee working in the respondent-insurance company claiming pension on voluntary retirement from services and as per the same, pension on voluntary retirement will be available to an employee who has completed 20 years of qualifying service, whereas as on 22.6.2009, when the appellant was relieved from services, he had not completed 20 years of service making him eligible for pension in terms of Para-30 of Chapter-V of the Pension Scheme, 1995. The learned Single Judge, while making distinction between the terms 'resignation' and 'voluntary retirement', has held that both the terms do not bear the same meaning. 6. The learned Single Judge has further observed that as the appellant has failed to disclose before this Court that after filing of the application for voluntary retirement, he has also tendered his resignation on the very same day and this fact shows that he has not approached this Court with clean hands and has suppressed the said fact with a clear intention to mislead the Court. After observing this, the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/- upon the appellant. 7. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has grossly erred in holding that the appellant was relieved from services on account of acceptance of his resignation and not on account of acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement. 7. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has grossly erred in holding that the appellant was relieved from services on account of acceptance of his resignation and not on account of acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement. It is argued that various communications issued by the respondent-insurance company indicate that the appellant was relieved from services on acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement and not on account of acceptance of his resignation. 8. Learned counsel has also submitted that the appellant has moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking certain documents on record, which due to inadvertence, could not be produced before the learned Single Judge. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant while placing reliance on some communications between the appellant and the officials of the respondent-insurance company dated 13.4.2009, 4.6.2009 and 7.6.2022 has reiterated that the respondent-insurance company has relieved the appellant while accepting his application for voluntary retirement only and, in such circumstances, the learned Single Judge has grossly erred in dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the fact of tendering resignation by the appellant has not been mentioned by him in the writ petition because he was relying on various communications of the respondent-insurance company wherein it has been mentioned that he is discharged from the services on account of acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement and, therefore, he thought that the fact of tendering resignation is not required to be disclosed. It is, therefore, argued that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside; the writ petition filed by the petitioner- appellant is liable to accepted and the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition are liable to be granted. 10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 11. It is not in dispute that on 13.4.2009, when the appellant has filed two applications seeking voluntary retirement and tendering resignation on 22.6.2009, when he was relieved from services, he has not completed 20 years' of service with the respondent-insurance company. 12. 10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 11. It is not in dispute that on 13.4.2009, when the appellant has filed two applications seeking voluntary retirement and tendering resignation on 22.6.2009, when he was relieved from services, he has not completed 20 years' of service with the respondent-insurance company. 12. The Pension Scheme, 1995, Para-30 of Chapter-V, clearly provides that the employee who has completed 20 years of qualifying service can apply for voluntary retirement by giving a notice in writing of not less than 90 days. Even if it is assumed that the appellant has applied for voluntary retirement on 13.4.2009, then also, it is clear that the said application could not have been entertained or allowed by the respondent-insurance company because the same is not in consonance with the provisions of Para-30 of Chapter-V of the Pension Scheme, 1995. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant was relieved from services by the respondent-insurance company on account of acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement. Various communications of the respondent-insurance company, which are available on record, clearly show that the appellant was relieved from services on 22.6.2009 on account of acceptance of his resignation. It is also not in dispute that those communications, relieving the appellant from services on account of acceptance of his resignation, were in the knowledge of the appellant, but he has deliberately not placed the same on record before the learned Single Judge. 13. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality in holding that the appellant has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts only with the intention to mislead the Court. 14. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this Special Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. 15. However, the time for depositing the cost of Rs.10,000/- with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur is extended for four more weeks from today. 16. Stay petition is also dismissed.