UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER versus ABHIRAM VERMA

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 55 · Decided: 30-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
55
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
v.
ABHIRAM VERMA
(Civil Appeal No. 1027 of 2020)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 – Regn.
15 – Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 – The respondent was
commissioned in the Indian Army (Armed Medical Corps) as a Short
Service Commission Officer – In the year 1998, he was granted
permanent commission – By letter/application dated 15.04.2000,
the respondent applied for resignation on the ground of lack of
promotional prospects – His actual date of superannuation was
31.05.2014 – The application for resignation came to be rejected
by the DG, Medical Services (Army) – Writ petition by the respondent
– The said writ petition came to be allowed by the High Court and
the Army was directed to consider the case of resignation afresh –
Thereafter the respondent’s resignation came to be accepted on
31.01.2007, however, it was stated that he was not entitled to any
terminal benefits except for encashment of leave (the denial of the
terminal benefits was the subject matter before the Armed Forces
Tribunal) – Tribunal directed the appellants to process the
respondent’s claim for terminal/pensionary benefits taking
qualifying service as 15 years as a “late entrant” u/regn. 15 of the
Pension Regulations, 1961 – Aggrieved, the Union of India
preferred appeal before the Supreme Court – Whether in the facts
and circumstances of the case, the respondent is entitled to the benefit
of regn. 15 of Pension Regulations, 1961 as a “late entrant” and
therefore entitled to the pensionary benefits? – It is the case on
behalf of the respondent that his application tendered on 15.04.2000
was not an application for “resignation”, but it was a request for
“voluntary retirement” – Held: The qualifying service for the
purpose of “voluntary retirement” is minimum 10 years’ service –
Admittedly, the respondent did not complete the 10 years of service
on 15.04.2000 when he tendered his resignation and therefore as
such was not eligible to apply for “voluntary retirement” – Therefore,
he could not have applied for ‘voluntary retirement’ – The averments
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 55
55
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
56
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
in the writ petition all throughout the word used by the respondent
is “resignation” – It is only as an afterthought and to get the benefit
of “late entrant” u/regn. 15, the respondent is contending that his
application was ‘voluntary retirement’ – Thus, on 15.04.2000 the
respondent tendered “resignation” for lack of promotional avenues/
aspects and it was not a case of “voluntary retirement” –
Accordingly, the respondent’s claim for terminal/pensionary benefits
taking his qualifying service as 15 years as regards “late entrant”
in terms of regn. 15 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 is quashed
and set aside.
Words and Phrases – Distinction between the “resignation”
and “voluntary retirement” – discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The question posed for the consideration of this
Court is, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
respondent 12 is entitled to the benefit of Regulation 15 of Pension
Regulations, 1961 as a “late entrant” and therefore entitled to
the pensionary benefits? The incidental question which is posed
for the consideration of this Court is, whether the resignation
tendered by the respondent on 15.04.2000 can be said to be a
“resignation” or “voluntary retirement”. [Para 5][66-A-C]
1.1 To bring the case within Regulation 15 and get the
benefit as a “late entrant”, it is the case on behalf of the respondent
that his application tendered on 15.04.2000 was not an application
for “resignation”, but it was a request for “voluntary retirement”.
The submission on behalf of the respondent that what was
tendered on 15.04.2000 was not an application for “resignation”
but it was an application for “voluntary retirement” has no
substance and cannot be accepted for the following reasons: i)
that the qualifying service for the purpose of “voluntary
retirement” is minimum 10 years’ service. On 15.04.2000, the
respondent did not complete 10 years of service and therefore
was not eligible for applying for “voluntary retirement” and
therefore on 15.04.2000 otherwise also he could not have applied
for “voluntary retirement”; ii) in the application dated 15.04.2000,
the cause shown was lack of promotional aspects. Even the High
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
57
Court of Jammu & Kashmir in its judg

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