Meghalaya High Court: In a civil writ petition by a teacher who had resigned from the service, sought for regularization of services and for release of pensionary and other terminal benefits after thirty-three years of service, H. S. Thangkhiew, J. allowed the petition and held that the petitioner’s resignation be considered to be in effect and in continuation of the application for voluntary retirement, and be afforded all the retiral benefits.
Background
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 21-07-1989, and thereafter, vide order dated 01-09-1998, her service was regularized w.e.f. 28-10-1996. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred and posted as a Ladies’ Social Education Officer (LSEO) in the Office of the Joint Director of School Education & Literacy, on 13-10-2010. Later, the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement from service, however, the said application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was yet to be regularized and that the voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) would be applicable only after regularization of the adhoc appointment. Meanwhile her regularization was being considered, the petitioner resigned from service vide letter dated 01-02-2023.
The petitioner’s case was that on entering into service, and on the issuance of the letter dated 01-09-1998, regularizing her services w.e.f. 28-10-1996, she was in the firm belief that her services had been regularized, making her eligible to apply for the voluntary retirement. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that on being informed that her services were yet to be regularized, and that the process was on, in view of the urgency to contest the elections she had submitted the resignation letter. It was also submitted that having served for thirty-three years she cannot be deprived of her just entitlement, i.e. pensionary and other terminal benefits.
Issue
Whether the resignation would amount to relinquishment of the rights accrued in service by the petitioner?
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that after all of the events, the petitioner was regularized by the respondents vide order dated 25-04-2023, on the special approval being received from the Meghalaya Public Service Commission.
The Court said that the petitioner had been in continuous service since 21-07-1989, till her resignation on 01-02-2023, which undoubtedly if her services had been regularized, would have made her eligible to apply for VRS, and also entitled her to all pensionary and terminal benefits. It was on the belief that her services were regularized that she applied for VRS, notwithstanding the other communications seeking ex-post facto approval for regularization. The Court perused Rule 38A of the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) Pension Rules which provides for “Retirement on completion of twenty years continuous qualifying service” and mandates a period of three months’ notice and that further in the proviso, the appointing authority in the case of rejection was to communicate the same before the expiry of the notice period.
In the matter at hand, the Court noted that there was no intimation of rejection, apart from the letter dated 29-11-2022, which was not even communicated to the petitioner, and the petitioner came to learn about the same only after filing the first writ petition. The Court said that with the regularization of service that was granted on 25-04-2023, w.e.f. 01-09-1998, inasmuch as, had she continued in service after the rejection of her VRS application, she would be entitled to all her service benefits. The Court referred to T.K. Thanigaivel v. The Managing Director1, wherein, the Madras High Court, treated the resignation as one of the voluntary retirement and considered eligible for pension. The Court stated that “it would be unthinkable to any employee having served for about 33 years, to throw away due benefits which would have been granted in the usual course, especially after the formal regularization order had been passed on 25-04-2023.”
Hence, the Court held that the petitioner’s resignation 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. The Court further clarified that the petitioner shall be allowed pension under the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1983.
[Uttora G. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya, 2024 SCC OnLine Megh 534, Decided on: 14-06-2024]
1. W.P. No. 41096 of 2016 and W.M. P. No. 35082 of 2016.
