In W.P. (C) 11211 of 2017 -DEL HC- When an employee resigns, he takes a conscious and deliberate decision; seeking voluntary retirement and resigning operate differently: Delhi High Court while rejecting NABARD employee’s claim for pension after tendering ‘unconditional’ resignation letter from serving the government for 12+ years
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Manoj Jain [02-06-2023]

Read Order: Krishan Kumar Singh v Union of India

Simran Singh

New Delhi, June 6, 2023: The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition of an Indian Army Clerk and subsequently an employee of National Bank for the Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), who had sought directions to the Union of India to release pensionary benefits to the petitioner in accordance with Regulation 4 of NABARD Pension Regulations, 1993 [1] (Regulations)  after he had tendered his resignation from serving the government for more than 21 years (inclusive of his stint in Indian Army).

The Bench held that his ‘unconditional’ resignation letter tendered by the petitioner did not even remotely indicate that he had opted for voluntary retirement. “When any employee resigns, he takes a conscious and deliberate decision. Seeking voluntary retirement and resigning might be voluntary in nature but these operate differently.”

The issue for consideration was whether an employee who tendered an unconditional resignation was entitled to pension in view of Regulation 18 of the Regulations.

The Bench upon perusing the ‘unconditional’ resignation letter tendered by the petitioner stated there was nothing mentioned therein which may even remotely indicate that he had opted for voluntary retirement. It was the case of the petitioner that he had not resigned but voluntarily retired however, the Bench stated that such a contention could not hold any ground in view of the contents of his own letter.

The Court further rejected petitioner’s contentions that he had to resign on account of some harassment since no particulars in this regard had been submitted making such contentions unsubstantial and in the air. The Bench stated that the petitioner was not an illiterate man and had earlier served in Indian Army at clerical level and also had substantial service in NABARD. “It cannot be imagined that he did not know the difference between ‘resignation’ and ‘voluntary retirement’ which was as obvious as the difference between chalk and cheese. Even if the allegation of harassment from his seniors were to be accepted, nothing prevented him from seeking voluntary retirement.”

The Bench relied upon Union of India v. Abhiram Verma and stated that “when any employee resigns, he takes a conscious and deliberate decision. Seeking voluntary retirement and resigning might be voluntary in nature but these operate differently.”

The Bench noted that it was also not a case where the petitioner had sought voluntary retirement, which was denied. “Be that as it may, the question of qualifying service, evidently, pales into insignificance as consequent upon his voluntary resignation, his entire past service stood forfeited and, therefore, he was obviously not entitled to any pensionary benefit. The petitioner has also failed to bring on record any material which may indicate that the use of word “resignation” in Regulation 18 is ultra vires or unreasonable.”