Pension New Rule : Voluntary Retirement And Resignation Are Different, Benefits Of One Cannot Be Taken Away From The Other

Supreme court new announcement for pension scheme

Pension New Rule : Voluntary Retirement And Resignation Are Different, Benefits Of One Cannot Be Taken Away From The Other . Resignation and voluntary retirement are two different things. An employee who resigns from his job and later takes voluntary retirement cannot claim the benefit of pension reserved for those who retire. Such a claim is “unreasonable” and would be against the statutory pension rules, the Supreme Court has said. The Supreme Court has made such an important observation in the case of United Bank of India (Punjab National Bank) vs Swapan Kumar Malik.
A former bank employee resigned in 2006 citing mental illness. But later tried to claim pension benefits under the 2010 circular that allowed certain categories of retirees to join the pension scheme.

CHECK MORE: railways eq request timing changes

Swapan Kumar Malik joined United Bank of India in 1970. He resigned in August 2006. In August 2010, he applied for the bank’s pension scheme. This was as per a circular issued after a bilateral settlement. The bank rejected his application citing Rule 22 of the United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995. It disqualifies employees who resign from their jobs.

A single bench of the Calcutta High Court allowed his writ petition and treated his resignation as voluntary retirement. A division bench later set aside that decision, but directed the bank to amend the rules and re-evaluate Malik’s case. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court.
A division bench of Supreme Court Justices Deepankar Dutt and Ujjal Bhuyan has clarified the legal distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement. Conceptually, ‘resignation’ and ‘voluntary retirement’ are different. Employees resigning from service and employees taking voluntary retirement from service are two different categories. Treating the two categories differently cannot violate Article 14. There is no justification for such a holding on the facts and circumstances.