Union of India and Another vs Abhiram Verma

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 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 Court of Jammu & Kashmir in its judgment and order dated 11.10.2006 which was filed by the respondent specifically noted the submission on behalf of the respondent that the “petitioner having joined the Commission at a later stage has no chance of promotion to the first selection, i.e., to the rank of Colonel in the Army Medical Corps. Petitioner moved an application dated 15th April, 2000 before the respondents’ seeking “resignation” from the army on the ground of non-availability of promotional prospects and ineligibility to acquire technical skill”. Even the High Court in its judgment and order dated 11.10.2006 treated and considered the application submitted by the respondent dated 15.04.2000 as application for “resignation” and proceeded on that footing. Even the subsequent petition filed before the High Court being SWP 454/2008, the respondent never contended that it was an application for “voluntary retirement”. If the averments in the writ petition are seen all throughout the word used by the respondent is “resignation”. Therefore, only as an afterthought and to get the benefit of “late entrant” under Regulation 15, now it is the case on behalf of the respondent that what was meant by him at that time was praying for “voluntary retirement” and it was not an application for “resignation”; iii) even as per the applicable rules for premature retirement/resignation of AMC Officers dated 26.3.1998, a request of an officer to seek premature retirement/resignation on the ground of lack of career prospects shall not be accepted and even if the officers are permitted to resign, they are not entitled to terminal/pensionary benefits; and

(iv) even in the written submissions dated 15.09.2021 filed on behalf of the respondent, it can be seen that the respondent has accepted that on 15.04.2000 he was not eligible for “voluntary retirement” and therefore he used the word “resignation” to get out of the technical reason. Therefore, it can be said that he has admitted that on 15.04.2000 he did not fulfil the criteria for “voluntary retirement” as on that day he had not completed 10 years of service. Therefore, from the aforesaid facts, the only conclusion would be that on 15.04.2000 the respondent tendered “resignation” for lack of promotional avenues/aspects and it was not a case of “voluntary retirement”. [Para 6][67-D-H; 68-A-G]

3. As per Regulation 15, a “late entrant” is an officer who is retired on reaching the prescribed age limit for compulsory retirement with at least 15 years commissioned service (actual). As the respondent did not retire on reaching the prescribed age limit for compulsory retirement, the respondent cannot be said to be a “late entrant”. The purpose and object seems to be to give 5 years relaxation/grace for qualifying service for earning a retiring pension. As per Regulation 25(a), the minimum period of qualifying service actually rendered and required for earning a retiring pension shall be 20 years. However, if an officer is not able to complete the minimum period of qualifying service, i.e.,

20 years and before completing 20 years of service he is attaining the age of superannuation and is retired on reaching the prescribed age limit of compulsory retirement, but has completed

15 years of qualifying service, he is considered as a “late entrant” and is entitled to pensionary benefits by getting 5 years grace period. Therefore, to that extent the same can be said to be a relaxation/grace of 5 years for getting the benefit of pensionable benefits provided the case falls within Regulation 15 and an officer is a “late entrant”. As observed hereinabove, the respondent cannot be said to be a “late entrant” and therefore not entitled to the benefit of Regulation 15 and therefore not entitled to the pensionary benefits. [Para 11][71-C-G]

4. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal dated 9.2.2018 in T.A. No. 25/2017 quashing and setting aside para 2 of letter dated 31.01.2007 to the extent it denied terminal/pensionary benefits to the respondent and directing the appellants to process the respondent’s claim for terminal/pensionary benefits taking his qualifying service as 15 years as regards “late entrant” in terms of Regulation 15 of the Pension Regulations is hereby quashed and set aside and it is held that the respondent is not entitled to the terminal/pensionary benefits as a “late entrant” in terms of Regulation 15 of the Pension Regulations. [Para 12][71-G-H; 72A-B] Senior Divisional Manager, LIC v. Shree Lal Meena (2019) 4 SCC 479 : [2019] 5 SCR 391 – relied on. Union of India v. Lt. Col. P.S. Bhargava, (1997) 2 SCC

28 : [1997] 1 SCR 130; D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 : [1983] 2 SCR 165; K.J.S Buttar v. Union of India, (2011) 11 SCC 429 : [2011] 4 SCR

136 – held inapplicable.

BSES Yamuna Power Limited v. Ghanshyam Chand

Sharma (2020) 3 SCC 346 : [2019] 14 SCR 546 –

referred to.