SHASHIKALA DEVI versus CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 13 S.C.R. 868 · Decided: 17-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 868 
SHASHIKALA DEVI 
v. 
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 11488 of2014) 
DECEMBER 17, 2014 
[T. S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Voluntary retirement - Bank employee -After 31 years 
of service tendered resignation from service on account of 
medical ground - Resignation accepted resulting in forfeiture 
D of the entire service rendered by him and disentitling him to 
claim any pensionary benefit - Whether the letter, was in 
essence a letter seeking pre-mature retirement or a letter of 
resignation - Held: The employee was qualified to receive 
pension in terms of Service Regulations - He was also 
E entitled to seek voluntary retirement and not resignation -
Direction to employer-Bank to release the retiral benefits to 
the employee - Central Bank of India (Employees) Pension 
Regulations, 1995- Regulation 29(2). 
Pension - Pension since is not a bounty, but a right 
F which is acquired by long service, the Court will be slow in 
presuming that the employee intended to waive or abandon 
without any cogent reason. 
Waiver -
Of legally enforceable right -
When 
G admissible - Held: For waiver of legally enforceable right, it 
is necessary that the same is clear and unequivocal, 
conscious and with full knowledge of the consequences. 
H 
868 
SHASHIKALA DEVI v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 
869 
Interpretation of Statutes- While interpreting a statute, 
A 
court to keep the legislative intent in mind and eschew an 
interpretation which tends to restrict, narrow down or defeat 
its beneficial provisions - The beneficial provisions of a 
Pension Scheme or Pension Regulations should be 
interpreted liberally so as to promote the object underlying B 
that, rather than denying benefits due to beneficiaries -
Service Law- Pension. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. 
An employee who has completed 
twenty years of qualifying service is entitled to seek 
voluntary retirement from service of the Bank provided 
he gives a notice of not less than three months in writing 
c 
to the appointing authotity in that regard. In terms of 0 
proviso to Regulation 29(2) of Central Bank of India 
(Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995, ifthe appointing 
authority does not refuse to grant permission for 
retirement before the expiry of the period specified in 
the said notice, the retirement becomes effective from E 
the date of the expiry of the said period. In terms of 
Regulation 29(3)(a), the appointing authority is 
competent to curtail the period of notice of three months 
in appropriate cases subject to the condition that the 
employee shall not apply for commutation of his pension F 
before the expiry of the notice period. [Para 6][880-G-H; 
881-A-B] 
1.2. In the present case, the deceased employee 
had rendered nearly 34 years of service in the G 
respondent-Bank. He was, therefore, qualified to receive 
pension in terms of the Regulations applicable to him. It 
is also evident from a reading of Regulation 29 that the 
deceased-employee was entitled to seek voluntary 
retirement in terms of Regulation 29 for he had completed H 
870 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 
A more than twenty years of service by the 81h October, 
2007. As on 81h October, 2007 the deceased-employee 
was entitled either to resign from service or to seek 
premature retirement in terms of Reguration 29. 
B 
[Para 7][881-C-E] 
1.3. Whether or not a given communication is a 
letter of resignation simplictor or can as well be treated 
to be a request for voluntary retirement will always 
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case 
c and the provisions of the Rules applicable. That is, so 
even when this Court has always maintained a clear 
distinction between "resignation" and "voluntary 
retirement". [Para 7][881-E-G] 
D 
· UCO Bank and Ors. v. Sanwar Mal (2004) 4 SCC 
412: 2004 (2) SCR 1125; Reserve Bankoflndia 
and Anr. v. CECIL Dennis Solomon and Anr. 
(2004) 9 sec 461 : 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 465 -
referred to. 
E 
1.4. In the present case, the employee had chosen 
to leave the employment not because of any disciplinary 
or other action proposed against him or any order of 
transfer or posting with which he was unhappy or 
because any proceedings had been started that could 
F have visited him with any civil consequence if he had 
continued in service, but because of his physical inability 
to continue in service on account of diseases with which 
he was stricken. This is evident from the f

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