BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD. versus SH. GHANSHYAM CHAND SHARMA & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 14 S.C.R. 546 · Decided: 05-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
 [2019] 14 S.C.R. 546
546
BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.
v.
SH. GHANSHYAM CHAND SHARMA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 9076 of 2019)
DECEMBER 05, 2019
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD
AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Service Law:
Pension – Claim for – Denied on the ground that the employee
had forfeited his past services, by resigning – Challenged  –  High
Court held that the employee was entitled to pensionary benefit as
he had completed twenty years of service’ the legal effect of his
resignation letter would amount to voluntary retirement – Appeal to
Supreme Court – Held: There is distinction between ‘resignation’
and ‘voluntary retirement’ –  As per Pension Rules resignation entails
forfeiture of past service –  The employee having opted for
‘resignation’ cannot claim pensionary benefit on the ground that
earlier voluntary retirement was denied to him –  Central Civil
Services Pension Rules, 1972 –  r. 26.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Rule 26 of the Central Civil Service Pension
Rules, 1972 states that upon resignation, an employee forfeits
his past service. Irrespective of whether the first respondent
had completed the requisite years of service to apply for voluntary
retirement, his was a decision to resign and not a decision to
seek voluntary retirement. If this court were to re-classify his
resignation as a case of voluntary retirement, this would obfuscate
the distinction between the concepts of resignation and voluntary
retirement and render the operation of Rule 26 nugatory. Such
an approach cannot be adopted. [Para 12][554-E-G; 555-A]
2. The appellant-employer had denied the first respondent’s
application for voluntary retirement on the ground that the first
respondent had not completed twenty years of service. It was
thus urged that the appellant’s decision to deny the first
respondent voluntary retirement was illegal as the first
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
547
respondent had completed twenty years of service. Even if he
was denied voluntary retirement, the first respondent did not
challenge this decision but resigned. The denial of voluntary
retirement does not mitigate the legal consequences that flow
from resignation. No evidence has been placed on the record to
show that the first respondent took issue with the denial of
voluntary retirement. To the contrary, in the legal notice sent by
the first respondent to the appellant, the first respondent admitted
to having resigned. The first respondent’s writ petition was
instituted thirteen years after the denial of voluntary retirement
and eventual resignation. In the light of these circumstances,
the denial of voluntary retirement cannot be invoked before this
Court to claim pensionary benefits when the first respondent has
admittedly resigned. [Para 13, 14][555-B-E]
3. Therefore the question whether the first respondent has
served twenty years,  is of no legal consequence to the present
dispute. Even if the first respondent had served twenty years,
under Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules his past service stands
forfeited upon resignation. The first respondent is therefore not
entitled to pensionary benefits. [Para 15][555-F]
Senior Divisional Manager, LIC v Shree Lal Meena
(Shree  Lal Meena II”) (2019) 4 SCC 479  – relied on.
Asger Ibrahim Amin v LIC (2016) 13 SCC 797 – stood
overruled. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC v Shree Lal
Meena (“Shree Lal Meena 1”) (2015) 17 SCC 43 :
[2015] 12 SCR 158 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2016) 13 SCC 797
stood overruled
Para 3
[2015] 12 SCR 158
referred to
Para 7
(2019) 4 SCC 479
relied on
Para 7
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9076
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order  dated 26.05.2017 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 408 of 2017.
BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD. v. SH. GHANSHYAM CHAND
SHARMA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
548
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
C. U. Singh, Sr. Adv., Anupam Varma, Nikhil Sharma,
Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Rahul Kinra, Karun Sharma, Advs. for
the Appellant.
Parag Tripathi, Sr. Adv., R. C. Kaushik, Sumeet Pushkarna, Alok
Gupta, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J
1. By its order dated 26 May 2017 a Division Bench of the High
Court of Delhi upheld the judgement of a Single Judge dated 21 March
2017 granting pensionary benefits to the first respondent. The judgement
of the Single Judge directed the appellant to pay pensionary benefits to
the first respondent on the ground t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.