Review Application No. 100 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Review Application No. 100 of 2010 in Civil Writ Petition No. 12809 of 1996 Date of Decision : July 02, 2010 A.K. Malik .........PETITIONER VERSUS Life Insurance Corporation of India and others ..........RESPONDENT COARM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR. JORA SINGH PRESENT:- Shri Gurdip Singh, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner has sought review of the order passed by this Court on 08.01.2010 for the reason that vires of Rule 23 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 (for short “the Pension Rules”) and that of Regulation 19 (2A) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 ( for short “Staff Regulations”) have not been examined while dismissing the writ petition though illegality of such provisions was subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. Review Application No. 100 of 2010 [2] The petitioner joined as Assistant with the Life Insurance Corporation of India in December, 1960. It was in October, 1991, the petitioner submitted his resignation which was accepted w.e.f. 31.12.1991. The petitioner claimed pensionary benefits on the basis of the Pension Rules notified on June 28, 1995 w.e.f. 1.11.1993. The petitioner also claimed that in terms of Rule 19 (2A) of the Staff Regulations, he is entitled to pensionary benefits. Rule 19 (2A) of the Staff Regulations has been incorporated w.e.f. 1.11.1993 vide notification 16.02.1996. The claim of the writ petitioner for pensionary benefits has been declined on the ground that subsequent promulgation of Pension Rules will not entitle the petitioner to claim the pensionary benefits who has submitted his resignation prior to promulgation of such Pension Rules. Since the petitioner has submitted his resignation much before the promulgation of Pension Rules w.e.f. 1.11.1993 as also before the introduction of Regulation 19 (2A) of the Staff Regulations, therefore, the illegality of the aforesaid provisions need not be examined and was not examined in the order under review. The petitioner has referred to some of the judgments in support of his contention and made vehement grievance that such judgments have not been referred to in the order passed on 08.01.2010. The said judgments are not relevant for the issues raised. In M/s J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Company Ltd., Kalpi Road, Kanpur vs. State of U.P. And others, 1990 (5) Services Law Reporter 642, Section 2(s) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was being examined wherein the provision of voluntary retirement of workmen was considered to be inclusive of resignation while Review Application No. 100 of 2010 [3] considering the scope of expression “retirement”. The scope of the said judgment is in respect of interpretation of word 'retrenchment' and is not relevant to deal with the issue of pensionary benefits. In Dayal Saran Sanan vs. Union of India and others, (1980) 3 SCC 25, an order was passed by the employer in respect of the employee that his name has been struck off as he failed to join the station of posting after his transfer to the said place. It was found that the name of the employee cannot be struck off in such manner and it will not amount to forfeiture of past service so as to deny the benefit of pension and gratuity. In Praduman Kumar Jain vs. Union of India through Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi and another, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 548, the central government employee on completion of requisite qualifying service resigned to join the Central Government Undertaking. It was held that the employee will be entitled to pro rata pension in respect of service rendered by him in the Central Government. In Sudhir Chandra Sarkar vs. Tata Iron an Steel Co. Ltd. and others, (1984) 3 SCC 369, the gratuity to the workmen was not paid though the workmen has worked for a number of years. Relying upon Rule 6(a) of the Retiring Gratuity Rules, 1937, it was held that termination of service on account of resignation falls with the expression retirement from service and is qualified for payment of gratuity. All the cases referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not deal with the illegality of the provisions similar to as Rule 23 of the Pension Rules and Regulation 19 (2A) of the Staff Regulations. The issues raised and decided are not relevant to any of the issues arising in Review Application No. 100 of 2010 [4] the present case. Thus, we do not find any merit in the review petition. The same is dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) JUDGE ( JORA SINGH ) JUDGE July 02, 2010 ks