# Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 3 ILRA 1341
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-08-18
- **Case number:** C.M.W.P. No. 21511 of 2012
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon, Bharat Bhushan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anil-kumar-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43315
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Pension
benefits-petitioner after 20 years servicetendered resignation-before acceptance by
another letter request to treat voluntarily
retired-rejection not proper-view taken by
authority based upon clause 6 (2) of
circular
01.05.03-held-hyper
technicalentitled for pension.
Held: Para-13 & 14

## Text

3 All] Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1341
people and the masses and not by the courts
alone. We, therefore, leave this question of
rehabilitation of "A" open to the masses
whose love and affection can save two
normal lives from becoming two negative
characters of the society in future. They
should be accepted; not haunted by the
society. The Court has played its role within
the parameters of law. Now it is the turn of
the seekers of justice from the courts i.e.
people of India to see and show their
response to the victims of their society.
100.
Lastly, we record our deep
appreciation for the assistance provided
by amicus curiae Sri Jaideep Narain
Mathur, Senior Advocate and Sri Ravi
Nath Tilhari, who have put in a lot of
work in this regard. We also record our
appreciation to his other colleague Sri
Madhav Chaturvedi. President of the
Oudh Bar Association Sri H.G.S.Parihar,
Senior
Advocate
and
Sri
Gaurav
Mehrotra, have also addressed the Court
and placed number of judgments before it.
None of these counsel have accepted any
remuneration for this work. The Court is
pleased to note that at least this section of
the society has started feeling its
responsibility towards good cause of
helping people in need. Sri Mohsin Iqbal,
counsel for petitioner and Mrs. Bulbul
Godiyal, Additional Advocate General
have also worked very hard and deserve
appreciation from the Court, which we
hereby accord.
101. Let a copy of this judgment and
order
be
placed
before
the
Chief
Secretary, State of U.P. for necessary
action.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.08.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.
THE HON'BLE BHARAT BHUSHAN, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 21511 of 2012
Anil Kumar Gupta
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Trivedi, Meena Singh, Sri Ram
Prakash Upadhyay, Sri Kamlesh Shukla
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Nripendra Mishra, Sri Pankaj
Kumar Shukla
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Pension
benefits-petitioner after 20 years servicetendered resignation-before acceptance by
another letter request to treat voluntarily
retired-rejection not proper-view taken by
authority based upon clause 6 (2) of
circular
01.05.03-held-hyper
technicalentitled for pension.
Held: Para-13 & 14
13. In our opinion, there is hardly any
difference
on
the
basis
whereof
an
employee after 20 years of service resigns
or
submits
a
voluntarily
retirement
application. In that sense, resignation and
voluntarily retirement only bring about the
break
of
employment
between
the
employee and employer. Both modes bring
an end to the contract of service.
14.
In our opinion, applicability of clause
(b) can not be confined to application which
technicality
use
the
words
voluntary
retirement in the letter of the employee
concerned for excluding its applicability if
the letter says that the employee is
resigning.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)
1. Petitioner before this Court seeks
quashing of the order dated 26.5.2011,
1342
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Annexure-5 to the writ petition, whereby
Under Secretary of U.P. Power Corporation
Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Power
Corporation) has informed the petitioner that
since he had submitted resignation vide letter
dated 10.12.2010 with the request that he
wishes to resign from the service of
Corporation and the period of notice may be
adjusted against the leave encashment, his
request
had
been
accepted
by
the
Corporation and intimation in this regard was
supplied to the petitioner on 30.3.2011,
therefore, in view of such acceptance of
resignation, the petitioner is not entitled to
pension
in
view
of
clause
(6)
of
Corporation's circular dated 1.5.2003 as any
employee resigning from the services of
Power Corporation is not entitled to pension.
2.
On behalf of the petitioner,
initially it was contended that before his
resignation could be accepted, he had
submitted another letter dated 15.9.2010
for treating his resignation as a request for
voluntarily retirement. He submitted that
in view of clause (6) of Corporation's
circular dated 1.5.2003, he is entitled to
post retiral benefits including pension.
3. On behalf of the Power Corporation,
Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate,
assisted by Sri Nipendra Misra, submitted
before us that under the letter of Managing
Director of the Corporation dated 21.5.2003,
the mode and procedure in the matter of
pension, as enforced under letter of Principal
Secretary (Finance) dated 24.6.1996 had
been adopted for the Power Corporation
employees. Clause (6) of the letter of
Principal
Secretary
(Finance)
dated
24.6.1996 permits payment of pension to
only such employees who seek voluntarily
retirement. The petitioner had resigned from
the services of the Corporation and therefore,
his case is not covered by clause (6) of the
letter of Principal Secretary (Finance). The
claim of the petitioner for post retiral benefits
including pension is not justified.
4. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and examined the material on
record.
5. Facts which are not disputed are
as follows :-
6.
Petitioner was appointed in the
employment of Power Corporation on 1.8.1980.
He submitted an application for resignation on
14.5.2008, which is alleged to have been
accepted on 30.7.2009 and information of the
same was communicated to the petitioner under
letter dated 30.7.2009. The petitioner claims to
have submitted a letter for his resignation being
converted into that of voluntarily retirement on
19.9.2010. The facts noted above clearly
demonstrate that the petitioner had completed
more-than 20 years of active service in the
employment of Corporation.
7.
Clause (6) of the order issued by
Principal Secretary (Finance) applicable in the
matter of payment of pension to the employees
of the Corporation has been brought on record
before us along with counter affidavit as
Annexure11. Clause(6) reads as follows :-
"6- isa'ku dk ekeyk fuEufyf[kr esa ls fdlh
,d izdkj dh lsokfuo`fRr ds laca/k esa gks ldrk gS]
1- v)ru la'kksf/kr m0iz0 jk0 fo0 izk0
deZpkfj;ksa dh lsokfuo`fRr fu;ekoyh 1975%&
sd- vf/ko"kZrk ij%& ;g fnuakd 5 uoEcj 1985
ls iwoZ fu;qfDr lewg ?k bUQhfj;j lfoZl ds
deZpkfj;ksa ds ekeys esa 60 o"kZ ij rFkk vU; lHkh
ekeyksa esa 58 o"kZ dh vk;q ij gksxhA
[k- LosPNk%&&20 o"kZ dh vgZdkjh lsok ;k 45
o"kZ dh vk;q ds ckn deZpkfj;ksa }kjk yh xbZ LosPNk
lsokfuo`fRrA
x- vfuok;Z&&50 o"kZ dh vk;q ds ckn fu;qfDr
vf/kdkjh }jk uksfVl nsdj dh xbZ lsokfuo`fRrA"
3 All] Prabhakar Rai Vs. Union of India. & Ors.
1343
8. On simple reading of the aforesaid
clause, it will be seen that all those
employees i.e. (1) who attained the age of
superannuation and retire thereafter; (b) who
relinquished the service of the Corporation
voluntarily after completing 20 years of
services; and (c) all those who voluntarily
retire after attaining the age of 50 years,
would be entitled to pension.
9. The dispute between the parties
before us is not with regard to qualifying
service of 20 years. The dispute is as to
whether a person who had resigned would
be covered by clause (b) or not.
10. According to Corporation, the
right to resignation is an inherent right of
an employee to give up his engagement at
any time. While in the case of voluntarily
retirement, such power can be exercised
only after 20 years of service.
11. This Court, therefore, required the
counsel for the Corporation to demonstrate
as to whether under any service rule
applicable the mode and manner of
resignation/submission of an application for
voluntary retirement is regulated.
12. Counsel for the Corporation
conceded that there is no violation of
rules in submitting of the application in
the
matter
of
resignation/voluntary
retirement.
13. In our opinion, there is hardly
any difference on the basis whereof an
employee after 20 years of service resigns
or submits a voluntarily retirement
application. In that sense, resignation and
voluntarily retirement only bring about
the break of employment between the
employee and employer. Both modes
bring an end to the contract of service.
14. In our opinion, applicability of
clause (b) can not be confined to
application which technicality use the
words voluntary retirement in the letter of
the employee concerned for excluding its
applicability if the letter says that the
employee is resigning.
15.
The Power Corporation is not
justified in refusing the claim of the petitioner
for the purpose of payment of pension etc.
even after he has completed more-than 20
years of qualifying service with the
Corporation on the ground that he has used
the words resignation in place of voluntarily
retirement in his letter of dated 14.05.2008.
The subsequent letter of petitioner is not of
much significant it is superfluous.
16.
We, therefore, hold that
petitioner application for retirement from
the employment of the respondent Power
Corporation dated 14.5.2008 squarely
falls within sub-clause (b) of clause (6) of
circular dated 24.6.1996. He is held
entitled to the post retiral benefits
including
pension
which
may
be
computed by the respondent Corporation
strictly in accordance with law within
eight weeks and actual payment may be
made immediately thereafter.
17. The writ petition is allowed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.11.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
Writ-A No. 22323 of 1996
Prabhakar Rai
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
...Opp. Parties