WA/3455/2023 of Chairman-cum-Managing Director Vs A.S. Chandrasekaran on 31 August 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The United India Insurance Company Limited preferred the present intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent challenging the writ order dated 28.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.22157 of 2013.

2. The facts in brief are that respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as Stenographer on 13.11.1968 in United India Insurance Company Limited. He was promoted to the post of Deputy Manager on 28.05.1990. Respondent was sent on deputation to Ken India Assurance Company at Kenya on 05.08.1994. Initial period of deputation was three years and it was extended by another three years and three months. During the said period of deputation, respondent was further promoted to the cadre of Manager Scale V on 22.01.1997. On completion of the period of deputation, the respondent was relieved from Ken India Assurance Company Limited on 21.11.2000. He joined in the appellant company and reported for duty on 27.11.2000.

3. Respondent admittedly submitted a resignation letter/Voluntary Retirement request on 28.11.2000. The letter given by the respondent states that, “...I shall be obliged if you will be good enough to relieve me by close of office hours of 28th February 2001. Should any provision of the rules, as they stand interpreted presently, come in the way of approval for voluntary retirement, I have no other option but to request you to allow me to relinquish office on resignation. If, at a later date, a favorable view is taken about voluntary retirement, I believe, you will be kind enough to extend the same to me.”

4. The request of the respondent for voluntary retirement was rejected vide Proceedings, dated 12.02.2001 stating that on expiry of deputation and on rejoining duty, the officer must serve atleast for a period of one year for availing the benefit of voluntary retirement. Since the respondent had not decided to work for a period of one year, and made a request that, in the event of non-acceptance of voluntary retirement, his letter may be treated as resignation and he may be relieved from service. Thus, the management treated the letter as resignation and relieved him from service. A reply was given to the respondent, vide Proceedings dated 12.02.2001 stating that his voluntary retirement was not accepted and he was relieved on the ground of resignation.

5. Respondent subsequently sent some representations, and in the year 2011, management has replied reiterating the reason given by them in the year 2001 vide Letter, dated 12.02.2001. Thereafter, writ petition came to be instituted in the year 2013 after a lapse of about 12 years from the date of resignation. Since writ petition came to be allowed, United India Insurance Company preferred a writ appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that the scheme of voluntary retirement under General Insurance (Employees’) Pension Scheme, 1995) (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘Pension Scheme’) is unambiguous. Clause 30(1), 1st proviso states that a deputed employee having returned to India and resumed charge of the post in India has to serve for a period of not less than one year to become eligible for voluntary retirement.

7. In the present case, letter given by the respondent is clear that in the event of not accepting the voluntary retirement, he may be relieved, as if he has resigned from the post. Thus, the respondent was very much aware of the pension rules and one year of service required to become eligible to avail the benefits of voluntary retirement scheme. Having known about the condition and allowed the management to accept the resignation letter, he cannot turn around and file a writ petition after a lapse of 12 years. Thus, the writ order impugned is not in consonance with the Pension Scheme available to the employees of United India Insurance Company Limited.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent would oppose by stating that delay and latches cannot be a ground to reject the claim of pension. It is a continuing cause of action. No doubt, the claim for pension under voluntary retirement scheme was rejected in the year 2001. However, the respondent was continuously writing representations as well as oral submissions before the management for grant of pension. In support, he would rely on certain judgments showing that in respect of continuing cause of action, delay cannot be held against the employee.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent would further submit that 1st proviso to Clause 30 of the Pension Scheme cannot be interpreted in the present case, since the period of deputation expired as far as the respondent is concerned. On expiry of the period of deputation, further continuance of service for a period of one year may not arise at all. Thus, the writ Court is right in considering the claim of the respondent.

10. This Court has considered the rival submissions made between the parties to the lis.

11. In the context of the facts narrated in the opening paragraphs, let us now consider the scope of the Pension Scheme, under which the application has been submitted by the respondent.

12. Pension Scheme was notified by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 17A of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 with effect from 01.11.1993. Chapter IV of the Pension Scheme provides Qualifying Service. Clause 22 of the Pension Scheme stipulates Forfeiture of Service and the same reads as follows: “Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination or compulsory retirement of an employee from the service of the Corporation or a Company shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits.”

13. Chapter V denotes Classes of Pension. Clause 30 deals about Pension on voluntary retirement. Sub-Clause (1) to Clause 30 reads as under: “(1) At any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than ninety days, in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service : Provided that this sub-paragraph shall not apply to an employee who is on deputation unless after having been transferred or having returned to India he has resumed charge of the post in India and has served for a period of not less than one year: Provided further that this sub-paragraph shall not apply to an employee who seeks retirement from service for being absorbed permanently in an autonomous body or a public sector undertaking to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement.”

14. Close reading of provision for Pension on Voluntary Retirement under the Pension Scheme makes it clear that, on completion of 20 years of qualifying services, an employee may, by giving notice of not less than ninety days, in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service.

15. 1st proviso to Clause 30(1) contemplates that, this sub-paragraph shall not apply to an employee, who is on deputation, unless after having been transferred or having returned to India, he has resumed charge of the post in India and has served for a period of not less than one year. Therefore, the proviso clause contemplates disqualification to avail the benefit of voluntary retirement. The condition stipulated in the disqualification clause is that on expiry of deputation and after returning to India, the employee has to resume charge of the post in India and has to serve for a period of not less than one year from the date of joining the post in India.

16. In the present case, respondent was relieved from Ken India Assurance Company Limited on 21.11.2000. He joined in the appellant company in India and reported for duty on 27.11.2000. On the very next day, i.e., on 28.11.2000, he submitted a letter, wherein he has clearly stated that his letter may be treated as voluntary retirement. In the event of not considering the respondent under the voluntary retirement scheme, then the letter may be treated as resignation and relieve him from the post. The letter was duly considered by the competent authority of the appellant company and on 12.02.2001, the request for voluntary retirement from service of the company was declined and the letter submitted by the respondent was treated as resignation and accordingly, he was relieved from services. Therefore, under Clause 30 of the Pension Scheme, the letter submitted by the respondent on 28.11.2000 was treated as resignation under the Pension Scheme. Once the letter was treated as resignation, Clause 22 would press into service. Clause 22 of the Pension Scheme speaks about Forfeiture of Services. Accordingly, resignation from services of the Corporation shall entail forfeiture of his entire past services and consequently, the employee shall not qualify for pensionary benefits.

17. Therefore, respondent being conscious about the disqualification contemplated under Clause 30 of the Pension Scheme, submitted his letter to meet out twin circumstances that his letter may be either treated as voluntary retirement or as resignation. Appellant, since found that respondent has not served in the appellant company after joining the post in India, rejected the claim for voluntary retirement and treated the letter as resignation and he was relieved from service.

18. This Court does not find any infirmity in the respect of the decision taken by the appellant company. Once the letter has been treated as resignation, Clause 22 of the Pension Scheme would apply and therefore, the services of the respondent has been forfeited. Therefore, his claim for pension is untenable in view of the above conditions under the Pension Scheme.

19. Regarding delay and latches, ground raised by the respondent is that it is a continuing cause of action. The concept of continuing cause of action must be considered in the context of the cause, which would arise continuously, and there cannot be any disconnection between the original cause arose for initiation of legal proceedings. Reiteration of the original cause after a lapse of many years would not provide a fresh cause for instituting legal proceedings. If the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent that pension is a continuing cause, if accepted in the context of the present case, would lead to dilution of the law of limitation and delay and latches, which is impermissible. The cause of action arose and the delay caused are to be considered in the context of the facts as well as the legal provisions.

20. In the present case, respondent submitted a letter of resignation/ voluntary retirement. Employer/appellant accepted the letter as resignation and relieved him from service. Order to that effect was issued by the management on 12.02.2001. Thereafter, sending a representation to the employer will not save the law of limitation. Once the employer has taken a final decision and communicated the same to the employee, the employee has to go for next course of action to be followed. Again approaching the same authority continuously for a period of 12 years will not save the limitation nor the repeated representations or reply by the respondent would provide a fresh cause of action for initiation of legal proceedings. A cause of action dead cannot be restored after a lapse of several years by merely submitting a representation and securing a reply from the employer. The practice of filing a writ petition to consider the representation after several years from the cause of action and securing an order to dispose of the representation and further the order passed by the respondent on merits, once again reiterating the decision would also be a ground to reject the writ petition on account of delay and latches. Therefore, mere direction to dispose of the representation would do no service to the cause of justice. The rights of the parties, law of limitation, delay and latches are all to be considered even for issuing a direction to consider the representation in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, a blanket argument that the respondent submitted a representation continuously, and in the year 2011, employer again reiterated the decision would not restore the cause of action, which became dead on account of delay and latches.

21. In view of the discussions made in the aforementioned paragraphs, this Court could able to arrive an irresistible conclusion that the order of writ

Court is not in consonance with the provisions of the Pension Scheme. Thus, the impugned writ order dated 28.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.22157 of 2013 is set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 31-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GD

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. GD WA No. 3455 of 2023 31-08-2026