RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. versus CECIL DENNIS SOLOMON AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 465 · Decided: 04-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
CECIL DENNIS SOLOMON AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 4, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations, 1990-Regulations 2(12) 
and 18-The Reserve Bank of India Staff Regulations, 1948-Regulation 
26(3)-Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934-Section 58(2)(1)-Resignation by C 
employees-Entitlement to pension-High Court holding that employees 
were entitled to pension as resignation from service was akin to voluntary 
retirement-Held, the High Court was in error in equating the case of 
resignation to voluntary retirement-The two are conceptually different in 
service jurisprudence and different consequences would flow depending D 
upon one or the other of the courses-Employees having claimed that they 
were not seeking benefit under the Pension Regulations, could not point 
out any other source to which their claims could be linked-Held, 
Employees ' claim for pension on the basis that Central Board of bank 
decided to extend the benefit to them by recommending changes in Pension E 
Regulations is not sustainable-Central Govt. did not approve the recom-
mendations-Unless ·the recommendations for the amendment are ap-
proved, they have no binding force or application-Sanction of Central 
Govt. mandatory as Pension Regulations were framed with the sanction 
of Central Govt. 
F 
Re~ponden.ts-employees were working in various capacities in the 
appellant-bank. They tendered their resignations sometime in 1988. 
The Reserve Bank of India Staff Regulations, 1948 were in operation 
at the relevant time governing the service conditions. Sub-rule (3) of 
Regulatio.- 26 of the Staff Regulations stipulated that ~n employee who G 
has attained the age of 50 years may voluntarily retire after giving to 
the comp.etent authority 3 months notice in writing. Subsequent to 
their resignation, the Reserve Bank ofJndia Pension Regulations, 1990 
cam to be operative. Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations stipu-
lated that resignation of an employee from the service shall entail H 
465 
466 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A forfeiture of his' entire past service and consequently such employee 
shall not qualify for pension payment. The respondent-employees 
moved the High Court questioning legality of Regulation 18 of the 
Pension Regulations. The High Court held that the respondent-em-
ployees were entitled to pension as Regulation 18 did not have any 
B retrospective operation and, therefore, the employer was legally bound 
to grant pension. Hence the present appeals. 
On behalf of the appellant-bank, it was contended that the High 
Court erroneously held that resignation 'from service being not equiva-
C lent to dismissal or termination, is more akin to voluntary retirement; 
that the Pension Regulations clearly ruled out payment of pension for 
those employees who go out by tendering resignation; that there was 
no question of the respondents-employees taking voluntary retirement 
as they had not attained the age of SO years in terms of Regulation 26(3) 
of the Staff Regulation, 1948. 
D 
On behalf of respondents-employees it was submitted that the 
Central Board had recommended to extend the benefit to the employ-
ees like the respondents and that being so, the benefits could not have 
been denied; that Staff Regulations were in the nature of administra-
E tive decisions and the govt. decision was inconsequential; and once the 
Board had decided to grant the benefit and even had suggested 
amendments to Staff Regulations, there was no question of any govt. 
approval thereon. 
F 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : I. The High Court was in error in equating the case of 
resignation t,o voluntary retirement. The two are _conceptually different 
in the service jurisprudence and different consequ~nces would flow 
depending upon one or the other of the courses. In service jurispru-
G dence, the expressions superannuation, voluntary retirement, compul-
sory retirement and resignation convey different connotations. Volun-
tary retirement and resignation involve voluntary acts on the part of 
the employee to leave service. Though both involve voluntary acts, they 
operate differently. One of the basic distinctions is that in case of 
H resignation it can be tendered at any time; but in case of voluntary 
R.8.1. v. CECIL DENNIS SOLOMON 
467 
retirement, it can only be sought for after rendering prescribed period A 
of qualifying service. Othe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.