JUDGMENT : AJIT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Ms. Jigyasa Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Navin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents no. 2 and 3 and Ms. Monika Arya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 4 and perused the record. 2. Affidavit filed today on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3, in compliance of earlier order dated 30.03.2022, is taken on record. 3. The petitioner before this Court claims to be a retired employee of the local body namely Nagar Palika Parishad, Khurja, Bulandshahr on the plea that after serving the Nagar Palika for nearly 32 years and six months he opted for voluntary retirement by submitting his application dated 22.12.2000 which was accepted by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khurja vide order dated 26.12.2000. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of his voluntary resignation being accepted by the Nagar Palika Parishad concerned and his papers for post retirement dues being duly forwarded by the Executive Officer on 28.09.2006, the respondent no. 4 vide order impugned dated 24.01.2007 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for pension and other retiral benefits on the ground that petitioner having resigned from service, applying the provisions as contained in Article 418(A) of Civil Service Regulations petitioner would not be entitled to retirement dues. 5. The contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold: firstly, Article 418(A) of the Civil Service Regulations could not be applicable to the employees of the non centralised service of the local body as their retiral benefits are governed under the UP Nagar Palika Non Centralised Services Retirement Benefits Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred as ‘the 1984 Rules’) and under the said rules, the pensionable service as defined Article 368 has been only made applicable. It is argued thus, that Rules of 1984 being special rules would override the general law applicable to pensionary benefits and other retiral benefits provided for under the Civil Service Regulations and secondly, by no stretch of imagination, the resignation submitted by the petitioner dated 22.12.2020 can be treated as resignation from service and not a voluntary retirement. 6. It is argued that the option for voluntary retirement or compulsory retirement from service almost stand on similar parameters of discretion. 6. It is argued that the option for voluntary retirement or compulsory retirement from service almost stand on similar parameters of discretion. While in case of compulsory retirement it is the establishment that decides the utility of an employee to continue him in service whereas in case of voluntary retirement the employee himself determines his utility to continue in service so as to serve the establishment. 7. It is argued that looking to the grounds assigned in the letter of resignation dated 22.12.2000, it is quite apparent that the petitioner was ailing and hence he wanted to tender his resignation but the at the same time looking to the condition of family and need of regular income to meet the requirement, he wanted his son to be given employment and therefore, it is submitted that this letter should be taken to be the one indicating the intention of the petitioner to take voluntary retirement from service. 8. It is also argued that since the petitioner had already rendered 32 years and six months of service and was on the verge of his retirement, he was entitled to opt for voluntary retirement as per the relevant provisions of 1984 Rules. 9. Besides above, it is argued that if it is to be taken as a resignation, it was a conditional one and the respondents should have turned it down in the event they were not offering employment to his son. But since the respondent in his wisdom found it to be a case where the petitioner was not health wise in a position to serve the establishment, it accepted the resignation. Thus, it would be a case according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, of voluntary retirement opted by the petitioner. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the local body has argued that the local body had treated the petitioner's resignation to be one of voluntary retirement and that is why his claim for retirement benefits under the 1984 Rules were forwarded to the Director, Local Bodies on 28.09.2006 and it is the Director, Local Bodies who rejected the claim of the petitioner. 11. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 in which vide paragraph-7 a stand has been taken that as per 1984 Rules since the petitioner had resigned from service, he was not entitled for retirement benefits. 11. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 in which vide paragraph-7 a stand has been taken that as per 1984 Rules since the petitioner had resigned from service, he was not entitled for retirement benefits. It is pleaded that the Rules very clearly state that those who resign from service would not be entitled to retirement benefits. 12. Yet another plea has been taken in the counter affidavit that in view of Article 418(A) of the Civil Service Regulations, since resignation from a public service which entails forfeiture of the past service, such an employee cannot be held entitled to retirement benefits. Except for these two paragraphs in the counter affidavit, nothing has been stated to defend the order. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and their arguments raised across the bar, this court finds the only issue to be decided in this case as to whether the petitioner's resignation should be taken to be a voluntary retirement or a resignation right from service so as to disentitle him to the retirement benefit under 1984 Rules. 14. In so far as retirement benefits are concerned under the 1984 Rules, I find merit in the submission advanced by counsel for the petitioner that except for Article 368 which provides for eligible service period for the purposes of pension, no other provision has been made applicable. This rule being specially framed for the employees of local bodies in the State belonging to non centralised services, it would certainly override any other general law that provides for eligibility criteria for the purposes of pension to an employee of any other establishment or a government servant. The relevant rules of 1984 also provide for pension in case of voluntary retirement. However, the Court does not find any provision under the Rules, 1984 which would specify as to when a case would be of resignation so as to disentitle an employee to the retirement dues. 15. On a repeated query being made to the Additional Chief Standing counsel, she has not been able to point out any such provision, nor she could defend paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 15. On a repeated query being made to the Additional Chief Standing counsel, she has not been able to point out any such provision, nor she could defend paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 according to which as per Article 418(A) of the Civil Service Regulations petitioner would not be entitled to retirement benefits which otherwise is applicable in case of voluntary retirement under the 1984 Rules. 16. In case of Sudhir Chandra Sarkar vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and Others, (1984) 3 SCC 369 , the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the claim of retirement benefits like gratuity etc. to an employee who had simply tendered his resignation which was accepted unconditionally and vide paragraph 7 it held thus: “7. The contention of the respondent is that the plaintiff 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 not in dispute, but is in fact conceded that the plaintiff did render continuous service from December 31, 1929 till 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 un-covenanted employee of the Company whether paid on monthly, weekly or daily basis will be eligible for retiring gratuity which shall be equal to half a month salary or wages for every completed year of continuous service subject to a maximum of 20 months salary or wages in all provided that when an employee 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 been defined in Rule 1 (g) to mean the termination of service by reason of any cause other than removal by discharge due to misconduct. It is admitted that the plaintiff was a permanent un-covenanted 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 unconditionally accepted. It is admitted that the plaintiff was a permanent un-covenanted 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 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 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 by the respondent. The plaintiff has, within the meaning of the expression, thus retired from service of the respondent an he is qualified for payment of gratuity in terms of Rule 6.” 17. The Apex Court though interpreted the relevant rules applicable in that case but in pith and substance the ratio is that if a person has completed qualifying service for the retiral benefits purposes, the same should not be denied. Referring to the judgment in case of P.S. Bhargav vs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 385 and Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (1979) 2 SCC 330, the Supreme Court vide paragraph 18 had held thus: “18. For centuries the courts swung in favour of the view that pension is either a bounty or a gratuitous payment for local 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 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 is now well-settled that pension is a right and payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the employer, nor can it be denied at the sweet will or fancy of the employer. Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Others, State of Punjab and Another vs. Iqbal Singh and D.S. Nakara and Others vs. Union of India. Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Others, State of Punjab and Another vs. Iqbal Singh and D.S. Nakara and Others vs. Union of India. If pension which is the retiral benefit as a measure of social security can be recovered through civil suit, we see no justification in treating gratuity on a different footing. Pension and gratuity in the matter of retiral benefits and for recovering the same must be put on par.” 18. Coming to the issue as to whether the resignation of the petitioner dated 22.12.2000 be taken as voluntary retirement or resignation right from service, one factual aspect of the matter is that petitioner was almost on the verge of retirement as hardly a fortnight was left from the date of retirement when petitioner was to attain age of superannuation and this acquires significance and must be taken into account. At this stage advanced age, if an employee has requested for offering an employment to his son and he wanted to resign as he was not in a condition to serve the establishment being not health-wise well, the only intention seems to be of voluntary relinquishment of the job. 19. In the letter accepting the resignation of the petitioner, it is mentioned that petitioner had requested for giving appointment to his son but it only indicates that resignation of the petitioner has been accepted. 20. Voluntary retirement would also be a case of resignation. The only difference is that in case of voluntary retirement an employee intends to relinquish the job for his attaining advanced age, illness etc. and shows his inability to continue to serve the establishment whereas in case of pure resignation an employee intends to leave the job either for the reason he has got an attractive employment or that he is facing hardships at the end of the employer and circumstances have forced him/her to resign. The intention of an employee can be gathered from the language the resignation letter as the contents of the letter and the language in which it is couched will only be a determinative factor as to its nature and character. 21. The intention of an employee can be gathered from the language the resignation letter as the contents of the letter and the language in which it is couched will only be a determinative factor as to its nature and character. 21. On the above analysis, I find that in the case in hand the language of the resignation letter to be indicative of it being meant for voluntary retirement and exercising my equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I find it to be harsh if I negate the claim of the petitioner to treat the resignation as voluntary retirement from service by taking it to be resignation simpliciter. Besides above, I find that employer himself had accepted the resignation of the petitioner as that of voluntary retirement and that is why his papers were forwarded for post retirement benefits including pension. In my view, it it within the authority and discretion of an employer to decide as to whether to treat a resignation letter as voluntary retirement or not and once the employer has treated resignation to be for voluntary retirement, there seems to be no scope for any other authority to take a different stand. Moreover, if an employee has completed qualifying service for getting retirement benefits and has resigned thereafter, he cannot be denied retiral benefits. His resignation would amount to voluntary retirement. 22. In the case of Sheel Kumar Jain vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2011) 2 SCC 197, the Court had an occasion to interpret the letter of resignation and vide paragraphs 25 and 26 it held thus: “25. Para 22 of the 1995 Pension Scheme states that 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 Pension Scheme, an employee, who has completed 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 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. 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 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 Company he had used the word resign.” 23. Very recently in the case of Shashikala Devi vs. Central Bank of India, (2014) 16 SCC 260 , the Apex Court had relied upon the judgments referred to above and held the petitioner entitled to the retirement benefits treating the letter of resignation as a voluntary retirement by the employee. However, the question of curtailment of notice period was allowed at the discretion of the authority vide paragraph 19 had held thus: “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-employee allowed with a direction to the respondent-bank to treat letter dated 8th 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 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 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 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.” 24. 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 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.” 24. In the case in hand, therefore, I find that the petitioner’s employer has rightly treated the letter of resignation as voluntary retirement and so made recommendation for payment of retirement benefits including pension. The qualifying service for pension to the employees of the non centralised service of a local body has come to be defined vide Rule 2¼ढ-½¼.k½¼r½ defining the same of Uttar Pradesh Nagar Palika Non Centralised Retirement Benefits Regulations, 1984 runs as under: ^^2- tc rd fo"k; ;k lanHkZ esa dksbZ ckr Áfrdwy u gks] bl fofu;ekoyh esa%& ¼ढ-½ lsokfuo`fRr isa'ku dk rkRi;Z fdlh in/kkjh ds vdsUæhf;r lsok ls vf/kokf"kZrk ij] vfuok;Zr% ;k LosPN ls lsokfuo`Rr gksus ij ;k LFkk;h in ;k LFkk;h fu;qfDr dh lekfIr ij] ;fn in/kkjh dh fu;qfDr fdlh vU; in ij u dh tk; ;k mls mlds iwoZoRrk ekSfyd in ij] ;fn dksbZ gks] ÁR;kokfrZr djuk laHko u gks] lsokeqDr gksus ls gS%& fVIi.kh%& lsok ls LosPN ls lsokfuo`Rr dk rkRi;Z ,slh lsokfuo`Rr ls gS tks 50 o"kZ dh vk;q ÁkIr djus ds i'pkr 20 o"kZ dh vgZdkjh lsok iwjh dj ysus ij gksA ¼.k½ lsokfuo`fRr isa'ku dk rkRi;Z ,slh isa'ku ls gS tks ,sls in/kkjh dks Lohd`r dh tk;] ftls vf/kokf"kZrk dh vk;q ÁkIr gksus ds iwoZ lsokfuo`fRr gksus dh vuq> nh tk; vkSj blds vUrxZr ,slh isa'ku Hkh gS tks ,sls in/kkjh dks Lohd`r dh tk; ftlls vf/kokf"kZrk dh vk;q ÁkIr djus ds iwoZ lsokfuo`Rr gksus dh vis{kk dh tk;A ¼r½ vf/kokf"kZrk dh isa'ku dk rkRi;Z fdlh ,sls in/kkjh dks Lohd`r isa'ku ls gS tks lqlaxr fofu;eksa ds v/khu fof'k"V vk;q ÁkIr gksus ij lsok ls fuo`Rr gksus dk gdnkj gksA** (Emphasis added) 25. From a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, an employee if has attained the age of 50 years and has spent 20 years of service, he would be entitled to seek voluntary retirement and so consequential benefits. From a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, an employee if has attained the age of 50 years and has spent 20 years of service, he would be entitled to seek voluntary retirement and so consequential benefits. The petitioner at the time of resigning from service had already attained 50 years of age and had also completed more than 20 years of service and so he could seek voluntary retirement and consequential benefits. 26. In view of the above, therefore, treating the petitioner's resignation as voluntary retirement from service and I hold him to be entitled to retirement dues. 27. Accordingly, the order passed by the Assistant Director (Pension), Local Fund and Accounts Examination Department, U.P. dated 24.01.2007 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. The petitioner is held entitled to retirement benefits as per the rules. Since petitioner has been made to suffer for more than 2 decades not for very genuine reasons but for this long drawn litigation, he is also held entitled to 7% simple interest over and above the retiral dues to be calculated as a consequence of the order being passed today. The necessary exercise shall be done by the respondent concerned within a period of three months including the calculation of interest and the same be paid to the petitioner within six weeks thereafter. 28. With the aforesaid observations and directions, petition stands allowed.