2014 (12) TMI 1271 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal allowed, High Court order set aside. Bank to process retiral benefits promptly.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's order. The respondent-bank was directed to treat the letter dated 8th October, 2007, as a notice ... Claim of pensionary benefits to the deceased-employee - whether letter dated 8th October, 2007 sent by late Shri Mauzi Ram, husband of the appellant, was in essence a letter seeking pre-mature retirement on medical grounds or a letter of resignation from the service of the respondent-bank ? - Held that:- 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. The employee's subsequent 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 the employee's intentions clear, at least for purposes of determining the true intention underlying the act of the employee. 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 result this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is, hereby, set aside and the writ petition filed by the deceased-employee allowed with a direction to the respondent-bank to treat letter dated 8th October, 2007 as a notice for voluntary retirement of the employee and for curtailment for three months notice period. Depending upon the view the competent authority may take on the question of curtailment of the notice period and/or deduction of three months salary from out of the retiral benefits of the deceased-employee, the deceased-employee's claim for payment of retiral benefits due under the relevant rules including pension shall be processed and released in favour of the appellant-widow as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months from the date a copy of this order is served upon the bank. In the event of the bank's failure to comply with the directions within six months as indicated above, the amount payable to the employee and after his death his widow, shall start earning interest @ 10% p.a. from the date the period of six months expires. Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of the letter dated 8th October, 2007: whether it was a resignation or a request for premature retirement on medical grounds.2. Applicability of Central Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995.3. Distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement.4. Entitlement to pension benefits under the Pension Regulations.Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of the Letter Dated 8th October, 2007:The primary issue was whether the letter dated 8th October, 2007, written by the deceased employee, was a resignation or a request for premature retirement on medical grounds. The letter detailed the employee's severe medical conditions, including cervical spondylosis and prostate problems, which rendered him unable to perform his duties. The employee requested the release of his terminal benefits to fund his medical treatment. The Court noted that the letter's emphasis on medical conditions and the need for terminal benefits indicated a request for premature retirement rather than a resignation.2. Applicability of Central Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995:The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Central Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995, particularly Regulation 14 (qualifying service), Regulation 22 (forfeiture of service), and Regulation 29 (pension on voluntary retirement). Regulation 29 allows employees with at least twenty years of qualifying service to seek voluntary retirement with a three-month notice period. The deceased employee had served for nearly 34 years, making him eligible for voluntary retirement.3. Distinction Between Resignation and Voluntary Retirement:The Court emphasized the distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement, citing previous judgments such as UCO Bank v. Sanwar Mal and Reserve Bank of India v. CECIL Dennis Solomon. The Court reiterated that pension is a right earned through long service and is not a bounty. The interpretation of the employee's letter should consider the legislative intent to provide benefits rather than restrict them.4. Entitlement to Pension Benefits Under the Pension Regulations:The Court concluded that the deceased employee's intention was to seek voluntary retirement due to his medical conditions, not to resign. The Court found it implausible that the employee would forgo his pension benefits, which were crucial for his medical treatment and livelihood. The subsequent communications from the employee further clarified his intention. The Court directed the respondent-bank to treat the letter as a notice for voluntary retirement and process the retiral benefits accordingly.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside. The respondent-bank was directed to treat the letter dated 8th October, 2007, as a notice for voluntary retirement and process the deceased employee's retiral benefits, including pension, within six months. Failure to comply would result in the payment accruing interest at 10% p.a. from the expiry of the six-month period. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.