Case: Shashikala Devi Vs. Central Bank of India &amp; Others

The High Court has while dismissing the writ petition and the appeal filed by thedeclared that the letter in question was a letter of resignation that resulted in forfeiture of the entire service rendered by the employee disentitling him to claim any pensionary benefits. The correctness of that view is under challenge in this appeal filed by the widow of the deceased employee who passed away during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court. Since the answer to the question so much depends upon the circumstances in which the letter referred to above was written by thewe may as well reproduce the same in09.10.07ToThe Zonal Manager,Central Bank of India,Zonal Office,Patna.Though: Proper ChannelSub: Resignation from the service of bankRespected Sir,With due respect I have to submit the following reasons which has compelled me to resign from my service.In the year 2002 I was attacked with severe carnio cervical spondyisis problem and I was referred to Dr. P.S. Ramani Lilavati Hospital, Mumbai where I had to go under surgical treatment. Within a month time I suffered acute prostate problem also for which I had to go for operation at Sheela Urology Centre Patna by Dr. S.S. Ambasta. But I could not get rid of my suffering of and on paid and giddiness goes acute. As a result I have been finding myself unable to move to the extent of discharging routine duty.Under the circumstances I had to remain on leave on many occasions even on loss of duty.Of late prostate problem has further aggravated acutely. Presently I am under the treatment of Dr. S.S. Ambasta at Patna, Acute Cervical disease coupled with prostate treatment of Dr. S.S. Ambasta at Patna. Acute Cervical disease coupled with prostate complication has virtually make me totally disabled even to perform my routine work.In support of my submission I enclose herewith Xerox copies of medical prescriptions of my treatment at Lilavati Hospital, Mumbai and of Urology Centre, Patna andprescription towards my present treatment.Under the above stated circumstances of my health which has made me incapacitated for rendering service in the bank. This in view I tender my resignation from the service of bank. I urge upon your honour to be kind to accept my resignation from service at the earliest so that I may be able to go for advance treatment out of my terminal benefits which is the only left out financial resource for my livelihood and medical treatment. I with my family members will be highly obliged for your kind and favourable consideration on my aforesaid request.Thanking you,Yours faithfully,(Mauzi Ram)Clerk,Rajbanshi

Court's reasoning:
7. In the case at hand, Mauzideceased employee had rendered nearly 34 years of service in theHe 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 thewas entitled to seek voluntary retirement in terms of Regulation 29 for he had completed more than twenty years of service by the 8th October, 2007. As on 8th October, 2007 thewas entitled either to resign from service or to seek premature retirement in terms of Regulation 29 (supra). The question in that backdrop is whether letter dated 8th October, 2007 was a letter of resignation simplictor or could as well be treated to be a letter seeking voluntary retirement. The High Court, as seen earlier, has taken the view that the letter was one of resignation that resulted in the forfeiture of past service under Regulation 22 of the Regulations. The High Court appears to have been impressed by the use of the wordletter dated 8th October, 2007. The use of the expressionhowever, is not, in our opinion, conclusive That is, in our opinion, so even when this Court has always maintained a clear distinction between. 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 and the provisions of the Rules applicable.When viewed in the backdrop of the above facts, it is difficult to reject the contention urged on behalf of the appellant that what theintended to do by his letter dated 8th October, 2007 was to seek voluntary retirement and not resignation from his employment. We say so in the light of several attendant circumstances. In the first place, the employee at the time of his writing the letter dated 8th October, 2007 was left with just about one and a half years of service. It will be too imprudent for anyone to suggest that a bank employee who has worked with such commitment as earned him the appreciation of the management would have so thoughtlessly given up the retrial benefits in the form of pension etc. which he had earned on account of his continued dedication to his job. If pension is not a bounty, but a right which the employee acquires on account of long years of sincere and good work done by him, the Court will be slow in presuming that the employee intended to waive or abandon such a valuable right without any cogent reasons. At any rate there ought to be some compelling circumstance to suggest that the employee had consciously given up the right and benefit, which he had acquired so assiduously. Far from the material on record suggesting any such conscious surrender abandonment or waiver of the right to retrial benefit including pension, we find that the material placed on record clearly suggests that the employee had no source of income or sustenance except the benefit that he had earned for long years of service. This is evident from a reading of the letter dated 8th October, 2007 in which the employee seeks release of his retiral benefits at the earliest to enable him to undergo medical treatment that he requires. The letter, as seen earlier, lays emphasize on the fact that for his sustenance the employee is dependent entirely on such benefits. It is in that view difficult for us to attribute to the employee the intention to give up what was rightfully his in terms of retiral benefits, when such benefits were the only source not only for his survival but for his medical treatment that he so urgently required. For a waiver of a legally enforceable right earned by an employee, it is necessary that the same is clear and unequivocal, conscious and with full knowledge of the consequences. No such intention can be gathered from the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Thesubsequent letters and communication which are placed on record cannot be said to be an afterthought. Being proximate in point of time letter dated 8th October, 2007 must be treated to be a part of the subsequent communication making theintentions clear, at least for purposes of determining the true intention underlying the act of the employee.15. It is, in our opinion, abundantly clear that the beneficial provisions of a Pension Scheme or Pension Regulations have been interpreted rather liberally so as to promote the object underlying the same rather than denying benefits due to beneficiaries under such provisions. In cases where an employee has the requisite years of qualifying service for grant of pension, and where he could under the service conditions applicable seek voluntary retirement, the benefit of pension has been allowed by treating the purported resignation to be a request for voluntary retirement. We see no compelling reasons for doing so even in the present case, which in our opinion is in essence a case of the deceased employee seeking voluntary retirement rather than resigning.In the facts of the present case, we find that the appellant had completed 20 years of qualifying service and had given notice of not less than 90 days in writing to the appointing authority of his intention to leave the service and the appointing authority had accepted notice of the appellant and relieved him from service. Hence, Para 30 of the 1995 Pension Scheme applied to the appellant even though in his letter dated 16.9.1991 to the General Manager of Respondent 1 Company he had used the word