After 33 Yrs Of Service, Meghalaya High Court Treats Teacher's Resignation As Voluntary Retirement, Entitling Her To Pensionary Benefits
The Meghalaya High Court has considered the resignation tendered by a teacher as voluntary retirement enabling the teacher to benefit from pension and other entitlements, based on the circumstances of her resignation from the service.Justice H. S. Thangkhiew was considering the claim of the petitioner that she cannot be deprived of her pensionary and other terminal benefits after having...
The Meghalaya High Court has considered the resignation tendered by a teacher as voluntary retirement enabling the teacher to benefit from pension and other entitlements, based on the circumstances of her resignation from the service.
Justice H. S. Thangkhiew was considering the claim of the petitioner that she cannot be deprived of her pensionary and other terminal benefits after having served for 33 years.
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 1989 and through an order dated 01.09.1998, the Inspector of Schools had regularised her services with effect from 29.10.1996. When the petitioner sought voluntary retirement from service in 2022 under Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1983, it was rejected by the respondents on ground voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) would only be applicable post-regularisation and that her regularisation through the order dated 01.09.1998 was invalid as it was done by an incompetent authority.
While awaiting regularisation, the petitioner resigned from her services on 01.02.2023 to contest elections. On 25.04.2023, the respondents regularised the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.09.1998. The petitioner argued that in view of these circumstances, her resignation should be treated as voluntary retirement entitling her to pensionary benefits, whereas, the respondents maintained that petitioner has relinquished her entitlements through her resignation.
The High Court stated that petitioner was under the bona fide impression that her services were regularised by the order dated 01.09.1998 and that she was she was eligible for voluntary retirement under the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension), Rules 1998.
The Court noted that resignation from service would normally result in forfeiture of past service. However considering the facts of the present case, the Court remarked that had the petitioner continued in service after the rejection of her VRS application, she would have been entitled to all the benefits as her service was regularised by the order 25.04.2023.
The Court observed that the petitioner's regularisation stood at the mercy of the respondents despite long years of service. It expressed that “The writ petitioner in the instant case was faced with a situation, wherein her VRS application stood rejected, her regularization at the mercy of the respondents inspite of her long years of service, and with the impending elections, which she was keen to contest in, in jeopardy, culminated in her tendering her resignation.”
The High Court referred to the case of Shashikala Devi vs. Central Bank of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 11488 of 2014), where the Supreme Court held that in case of claim of relinquishment of retiral and other benefits, there should be compelling circumstance to suggest that an employee consciously gave up the benefits despite long years of service.
The High Court taking note of the peculiar facts of the case, held that the petitioner's resignation should be considered as voluntary retirement by the respondents. It held that the petitioner is entitled to pensionary and other benefits as per the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1983.
“As such, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where the petitioner cannot be said to be totally at fault, the resignation of the petitioner shall be considered by the respondents to be in effect and in continuation of the application for voluntary retirement, and the petitioner consequently be afforded all the retiral benefits, as entitled and permissible.”
Case title: Smti. Uttora G. Sangma vs. The State of Meghalaya & ors., WP(C) No. 82 of 2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Meg) 15