Law makes a clear distinction between ‘resignation’ and ‘voluntary retirement’: Karnataka HC

Karnataka High Court: While passing the order in a set of writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, a Single Judge Bench of Raghvendra S. Chauhan, J. inter alia held that the petitioners who have resigned from there service cannot claim pension on the contention that their resignation should be treated as voluntary retirement.

The question before the Court in these set of petitions was that whether in the case where employees who have completed the qualifying service for pension and given resignation, there resignation should be treated as voluntary retirement or not? And whether such employees would be entitled to benefits of pension?

The Court after hearing the parties and perusing the record, held that there are three different modes for exiting from the service- resignation, voluntary retirement, superannuation. The law makes clear distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement which form two separate classes. Therefore those who have resigned cannot claim there resignation to be voluntary retirement. The law does not allow the blurring of difference between the two. The Court did not find any merit in the writ petitions and accordingly the petitions were dismissed. [P.D. Nanaiah v. Vijaya Bank, Writ Petition Nos. 17234-17267/ 2014, dated August 31, 2017]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.