Holding

The respondent is not a "late entrant" and his 2000 application was a resignation, not voluntary retirement, therefore he is not entitled to pension benefits under Regulation 15.

Summary

Abhiram Verma, an officer of the Indian Army Medical Corps, obtained a permanent commission in 1998 and applied for resignation on 15 April 2000 citing lack of promotion. The resignation was initially rejected, but after a series of statutory complaints and a High Court order, it was accepted on 31 January 2007 without terminal benefits. The Armed Forces Tribunal later directed that he be treated as a "late entrant" under Regulation 15 of the 1961 Army Pension Regulations, granting pension benefits based on 15 years of service. The Union appealed, arguing that his 2000 application was a resignation, not voluntary retirement, and that he did not meet the criteria for a "late entrant". The Supreme Court held that he had not completed the ten years of service required for voluntary retirement, that his application was unequivocally a resignation, and that he did not retire upon reaching the compulsory retirement age, thus he could not be classified as a "late entrant". Consequently, the Tribunal's order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, denying him pensionary benefits.

Issues considered

Whether the respondent is entitled to pension benefits as a "late entrant" under Regulation 15 of the Army Pension Regulations, 1961.
Whether the application dated 15 April 2000 constitutes a resignation or a request for voluntary retirement.
Whether the 2008 Army Pension Regulations and their provisions on qualifying service are applicable to the respondent.

Legislation cited

Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961s. Regulation 15, s. Regulation 25(a)
Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008s. Regulation 19(h), s. Regulation 19(j)

Subjects

pensionlate entrantresignationvoluntary retirementArmy Medical Corpsservice lawArmed Forces TribunalRegulation 15qualifying service

Judgment

[2021] 9 S.C.R. 55 55

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER A
v.
ABHIRAM VERMA
(Civil Appeal No. 1027 of 2020)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 B
[M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 – Regn.
15 – Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 – The respondent was
commissioned in the Indian Army (Armed Medical Corps) as a Short
C
Service Commission Officer – In the year 1998, he was granted
permanent commission – By letter/application dated 15.04.2000,
the respondent applied for resignation on the ground of lack of
promotional prospects – His actual date of superannuation was
31.05.2014 – The application for resignation came to be rejected
by the DG, Medical Services (Army) – Writ petition by the respondent D
– The said writ petition came to be allowed by the High Court and
the Army was directed to consider the case of resignation afresh –
Thereafter the respondent’s resignation came to be accepted on
31.01.2007, however, it was stated that he was not entitled to any
terminal benefits except for encashment of leave (the denial of the
E
terminal benefits was the subject matter before the Armed Forces
Tribunal) – Tribunal directed the appellants to process the
respondent’s claim for terminal/pensionary benefits taking
qualifying service as 15 years as a “late entrant” u/regn. 15 of the
Pension Regulations, 1961 – Aggrieved, the Union of India
preferred appeal before the Supreme Court – Whether in the facts F
and circumstances of the case, the respondent is entitled to the benefit
of regn. 15 of Pension Regulations, 1961 as a “late entrant” and
therefore entitled to the pensionary benefits? – It is the case on
behalf of the respondent that his application tendered on 15.04.2000
was not an application for “resignation”, but it was a request for
G
“voluntary retirement” – Held: The qualifying service for the
purpose of “voluntary retirement” is minimum 10 years’ service –
Admittedly, the respondent did not complete the 10 years of service
on 15.04.2000 when he tendered his resignation and therefore as
such was not eligible to apply for “voluntary retirement” – Therefore,
he could not have applied for ‘voluntary retirement’ – The averments H
55
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A in the writ petition all throughout the word used by the respondent
is “resignation” – It is only as an afterthought and to get the benefit
of “late entrant” u/regn. 15, the respondent is contending that his
application was ‘voluntary retirement’ – Thus, on 15.04.2000 the
respondent tendered “resignation” for lack of promotional avenues/
aspects and it was not a case of “voluntary retirement” –
B
Accordingly, the respondent’s claim for terminal/pensionary benefits
taking his qualifying service as 15 years as regards “late entrant”
in terms of regn. 15 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 is quashed
and set aside.
Words and Phrases – Distinction between the “resignation”
C and “voluntary retirement” – discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The question posed for the consideration of this
Court is, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
D respondent 12 is entitled to the benefit of Regulation 15 of Pension
Regulations, 1961 as a “late entrant” and therefore entitled to
the pensionary benefits? The incidental question which is posed
for the consideration of this Court is, whether the resignation
tendered by the respondent on 15.04.2000 can be said to be a
“resignation” or “voluntary retirement”. [Para 5][66-A-C]
E
1.1 To bring the case within Regulation 15 and get the
benefit as a “late entrant”, it is the case on behalf of the respondent
that his application tendered on 15.04.2000 was not an application
for “resignation”, but it was a request for “voluntary retirement”.
The submission on behalf of the respondent that what was
F tendered on 15.04.2000 was not an application for “resignation”
but it was an application for “voluntary retirement” has no
substance and cannot be accepted for the following reasons: i)
that the qualifying service for the purpose of “voluntary
retirement” is minimum 10 years’ service. On 15.04.2000, the
G respondent did not complete 10 years of service and therefore
was not eligible for applying for “voluntary retirement” and
therefore on 15.04.2000 otherwise also he could not have applied
for “voluntary retirement”; ii) in the application dated 15.04.2000,
the cause shown was lack of promotional aspects. Even the High

H
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER v. ABHIRAM VERMA 57

Court of Jammu & Kashmir in its judgment and order dated A
11.10.2006 which was filed by the respondent specifically noted
the submission on behalf of the respondent that the “petitioner
having joined the Commission at a later stage has no chance of
promotion to the first selection, i.e., to the rank of Colonel in the
Army Medical Corps. Petitioner moved an application dated 15th
B
April, 2000 before the respondents’ seeking “resignation” from
the army on the ground of non-availability of promotional
prospects and ineligibility to acquire technical skill”. Even the
High Court in its judgment and order dated 11.10.2006 treated
and considered the application submitted by the respondent dated
15.04.2000 as application for “resignation” and proceeded on C
that footing. Even the subsequent petition filed before the High
Court being SWP 454/2008, the respondent never contended that
it was an application for “voluntary retirement”. If the averments
in the writ petition are seen all throughout the word used by the
respondent is “resignation”. Therefore, only as an afterthought
D
and to get the benefit of “late entrant” under Regulation 15, now
it is the case on behalf of the respondent that what was meant by
him at that time was praying for “voluntary retirement” and it
was not an application for “resignation”; iii) even as per the
applicable rules for premature retirement/resignation of AMC
Officers dated 26.3.1998, a request of an officer to seek premature E
retirement/resignation on the ground of lack of career prospects
shall not be accepted and even if the officers are permitted to
resign, they are not entitled to terminal/pensionary benefits; and
(iv) even in the written submissions dated 15.09.2021 filed on
behalf of the respondent, it can be seen that the respondent has
F
accepted that on 15.04.2000 he was not eligible for “voluntary
retirement” and therefore he used the word “resignation” to get
out of the technical reason. Therefore, it can be said that he has
admitted that on 15.04.2000 he did not fulfil the criteria for
“voluntary retirement” as on that day he had not completed 10
years of service. Therefore, from the aforesaid facts, the only G
conclusion would be that on 15.04.2000 the respondent tendered
“resignation” for lack of promotional avenues/aspects and it was
not a case of “voluntary retirement”. [Para 6][67-D-H; 68-A-G]

H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A 3. As per Regulation 15, a “late entrant” is an officer who
is retired on reaching the prescribed age limit for compulsory
retirement with at least 15 years commissioned service (actual).
As the respondent did not retire on reaching the prescribed age
limit for compulsory retirement, the respondent cannot be said
to be a “late entrant”. The purpose and object seems to be to
B
give 5 years relaxation/grace for qualifying service for earning a
retiring pension. As per Regulation 25(a), the minimum period
of qualifying service actually rendered and required for earning a
retiring pension shall be 20 years. However, if an officer is not
able to complete the minimum period of qualifying service, i.e.,
C 20 years and before completing 20 years of service he is attaining
the age of superannuation and is retired on reaching the
prescribed age limit of compulsory retirement, but has completed
15 years of qualifying service, he is considered as a “late entrant”
and is entitled to pensionary benefits by getting 5 years grace
period. Therefore, to that extent the same can be said to be a
D
relaxation/grace of 5 years for getting the benefit of pensionable
benefits provided the case falls within Regulation 15 and an officer
is a “late entrant”. As observed hereinabove, the respondent
cannot be said to be a “late entrant” and therefore not entitled to
the benefit of Regulation 15 and therefore not entitled to the
E pensionary benefits. [Para 11][71-C-G]
4. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned
Armed Forces Tribunal dated 9.2.2018 in T.A. No. 25/2017
quashing and setting aside para 2 of letter dated 31.01.2007 to
the extent it denied terminal/pensionary benefits to the
F respondent and directing the appellants to process the
respondent’s claim for terminal/pensionary benefits taking his
qualifying service as 15 years as regards “late entrant” in terms
of Regulation 15 of the Pension Regulations is hereby quashed
and set aside and it is held that the respondent is not entitled to
the terminal/pensionary benefits as a “late entrant” in terms of
G Regulation 15 of the Pension Regulations. [Para 12][71-G-H; 72-
A-B]
Senior Divisional Manager, LIC v. Shree Lal Meena
(2019) 4 SCC 479 : [2019] 5 SCR 391 – relied on.

H
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER v. ABHIRAM VERMA 59

Union of India v. Lt. Col. P.S. Bhargava, (1997) 2 SCC A
28 : [1997] 1 SCR 130; D.S. Nakara v. Union of India
(1983) 1 SCC 305 : [1983] 2 SCR 165; K.J.S Buttar v.
Union of India, (2011) 11 SCC 429 : [2011] 4 SCR
136 – held inapplicable.
BSES Yamuna Power Limited v. Ghanshyam Chand B
Sharma (2020) 3 SCC 346 : [2019] 14 SCR 546 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2019] 14 SCR 546 referred to Para 3.8
C
[1983] 2 SCR 165 held inapplicable Para 4.4
[2011] 4 SCR 136 held inapplicable Para 4.4
[1997] 1 SCR 130 held inapplicable Para 4.5
[2019] 5 SCR 391 relied on Para 8
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1027 of
2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.02.2018 in TA No.25 of
2017 and order dated 25.03.2019 in M.A. No.114 of 2018 of the Armed
Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Srinagar at Jammu. E
Ms. Madhvi Divan, ASG, Rajan Kr. Chaurasia, Ayush Puri, Ms.
Aakansha Kaul, Ms. Preeti Rani, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Indra Sen Singh, Ms. Kirtika Singh, Sarvesh
Singh, Advs. for the Respondent. F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 9.2.2018 passed by the Learned Armed Forces Tribunal, G
Regional Bench, Srinagar at Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Tribunal’) in T.A. No. 25/2017(SWP No. 454 of 2008), by which the
learned Tribunal has disposed of the said transfer application by setting
aside para 2 of letter dated 31.01.2007 to the extent it denied terminal/
pensionary benefits to the respondent herein – original applicant
H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondent’) and directed the appellants
– original respondents to process his claim for terminal/pensionary
benefits taking his qualifying service as 15 years as regards “late entrant”
in terms of Regulation 15 of the Pension Regulations and to release the
same together with arrears, the department – Union of India and another
have preferred the present statutory appeal.
B
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:
That the respondent herein commissioned in the Indian Army
(Armed Medical Corps) as a Short Service Commission Officer on
27.03.1992 for a period of five years at the age of 33 years and 10
C months. He voluntarily applied for Permanent Commission on 7.8.1997.
He was granted Permanent Commission at the age of 39 years and 2
months on 28.01.1998. Respondent became a Graded Specialist on
1.6.1994 and thereafter he became a Classified Specialist on 1.6.1999.
By letter/application dated 15.04.2000, the respondent applied for
resignation on the ground of lack of promotional prospects. At this stage,
D it is required to be noted that his actual date of superannuation at 56
years of age was 31.05.2014. The application for resignation came to be
rejected by the DG, Medical Services (Army) vide communication dated
4.9.2000. That thereafter the respondent filed a statutory complaint on
24.03.2001 against the rejection of his resignation, the same was rejected
E by the Under Secretary, Government of India on 14.03.2002. That
thereafter the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of
Jammu & Kashmir being SWP No. 1573/2001 against the rejection of
his complaint by the Under Secretary, Government of India. The said
writ petition came to be allowed by the High Court vide order dated
11.10.2006 quashing the order of the Under Secretary which rejected
F the respondent’s resignation and directed the Army to consider the case
of resignation afresh. That thereafter the respondent’s resignation came
to be accepted vide order/communication dated 31.01.2007, however, it
was stated that he was not entitled to any terminal benefits except for
encashment of leave (the denial of the terminal benefits was the subject
G matter before the Armed Forces Tribunal). The name of the respondent
was struck off from the Army Medical Corps vide movement order
dated 22.04.2007, with effect from 23.04.2007.
2.1 That thereafter the respondent preferred the writ petition before
the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir being SWP No. 454/2008 for
H grant of gratuity and pension, which subsequently came to be transferred
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER v. ABHIRAM VERMA 61
[M. R. SHAH, J.]

to the Armed Forces Tribunal as TA No. 25/2017. That by the impugned A
judgment and order dated 9.2.2018, the learned Tribunal has disposed of
the said transfer application directing the appellants to process the
respondent’s claim for terminal/pensionary benefits taking qualifying
service as 15 years as a “late entrant” under Regulation 15 of the Pension
Regulations. That leave to appeal has also been dismissed by the learned
B
Tribunal vide order dated 25.03.2019.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the learned Tribunal directing the appellants to process
the respondent’s claim for terminal/pensionary benefits taking qualifying
service as 15 years as a “late entrant” under Regulation 15 of the Pension
Regulation, the Union of India and another have preferred the present C
appeal.
3. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned Additional Solicitor General of
India has appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri Vikas Singh,
learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
D
3.1 Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG has vehemently submitted
that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has
materially erred in directing the appellants to consider the respondent’s
claim for terminal/pensionary benefits taking qualifying service as 15
years as a “late entrant” under Regulation 15 of the Pension Regulations.
E
3.2 It is vehemently submitted that as such the learned Tribunal
has wrongly observed that the respondent submitted the request for
“voluntary retirement”. It is submitted that as such it was not a case of
“voluntary retirement”, but it was a case of “resignation” by the
respondent on the ground of lack of promotional prospects.
F
3.3 It is submitted that even it was not the case on behalf of the
respondent before the learned Tribunal that he submitted the application
for “voluntary retirement”. Reliance is placed upon some of the averments
in the petition before the High Court/learned Tribunal in which he has
categorically stated that he tendered the “resignation” for want of
promotional avenues. G
3.4 It is submitted that since it was the case of “voluntary
resignation from service”, the respondent shall not be entitled to the
benefit as “late entrant” under Regulation 15 of the Pension Regulations.

H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A 3.5 It is submitted that even otherwise at the relevant time the
respondent did not complete the qualifying service for the purpose of
“voluntary retirement”. It is submitted that thus the date on which the
respondent submitted the application for resignation on 15.04.2000, he
was not even eligible for premature retirement. It is submitted that
therefore it was a case of “voluntary resignation” and not “voluntary
B
retirement”.
3.6 It is submitted that admittedly when the respondent tendered
his resignation on 15.04.2000, he had only rendered service for 15 years
and 27 days. It is submitted that had the respondent not voluntarily resigned
and retired at the age of superannuation, (i.e, 56 years for a Lt. Col.) on
C 31.05.2014, he would have rendered 22 years 2 months and 2 days of
service. It is submitted that therefore when the respondent tendered the
resignation, he did not complete the minimum qualifying service as per
Regulation 25(a), i.e., 20 years. It is submitted that therefore the
respondent took the shelter of Regulation 15 as a “late entrant”. It is
D submitted that the minimum qualifying service for being eligible for retiring
pension is 20 years under Regulation 25(a). It is submitted that it is only
in the case of compulsory retirement on attaining the age of
superannuation where it is impossible for the officer to complete 20
years due to the prescribed age limit that a concession of 5 years is
granted to such “late entrants” that can earn a retiring person even after
E completion of minimum 15 years of service.
3.7 It is submitted that therefore as it was a case of “voluntary
resignation” and not a case of “voluntary retirement/retirement”. The
respondent cannot be said to be “late entrant” and therefore shall not be
entitled to the benefit under Regulation 15 of the Pension Regulations.
F
3.8 It is further submitted that in the present case the learned
Armed Forces Tribunal has erred in treating the present case of “voluntary
resignation” as one of “voluntary retirement”. It is submitted that there
is a vast difference between the “voluntary resignation” and “voluntary
retirement”. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case
G of BSES Yamuna Power Limited v. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma.
Reported in (2020) 3 SCC 346 (paragraphs 13 & 14).
3.9 It is further submitted by Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG
appearing on behalf of the appellants that assuming for the time being
that the respondent applied for “voluntary retirement”, in that case also,
H
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER v. ABHIRAM VERMA 63
[M. R. SHAH, J.]

as on 15.04.2000 even he did not complete the qualifying service for the A
purpose of premature retirement.
3.10 Now so far as the case on behalf of the respondent, so stated
in the counter affidavit on the reliance placed upon Regulation 19(h) and
19(j) of the Pension Regulations of the Army, 2008 to contend that the
period of service in a central autonomous body as well as period of ante- B
date of commission granted to an officer in respect of possession of a
Post-Graduate Qualification shall also count towards reckonable
pensionable service is concerned, it is submitted that the said Regulations,
2008 shall not be applicable as the respondent has resigned in the year
2000 and even his name was struck off from the Army Medical Corps in
the year 2007 and therefore Pension Regulations 1961 shall be applicable. C
It is submitted that, as such, such a plea was not taken before filing of
the counter affidavit before this Court and rightly not taken as the Pension
Regulations 2008 shall not be applicable.
3.11 It is further submitted that even otherwise considering the
applicable rules, namely, Premature Retirement/Resignation from Service D
of AMC Officers dated 26.03.1998, if a person has resigned on the
ground of lack of career/promotional prospects the same cannot be a
reason for acceptance of premature retirement/resignation and the
officers who are permitted to resign are not entitled to terminal benefits,
however, they are eligible to avail encashment of accumulated annual E
leave. It is submitted that therefore also not only the respondent was
ineligible to take the benefit of Pension Regulation 15, but also was
ineligible for any terminal benefits as per the aforesaid Regulations/Rules.
3.12 It is further submitted by Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG
that even the observations made by the learned Tribunal that the authority F
took seven years to decide on the application submitted by the respondent
is factually incorrect. It is submitted that the respondent tendered the
resignation on 15.04.2000 and the same came to be rejected by the DG,
Medical Services (Army) on 4.9.2000 and even the respondent filed a
statutory complaint against the rejection of the resignation on 24.03.2001.
It is submitted that therefore, as such, there was no delay at all on the G
part of the authority in deciding the application for resignation.
3.13. Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid
decision, it is prayed to allow the present appeal.

H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A 4. The present appeal is opposed by Shri Vikas Singh, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
4.1 It is vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances
of the case, as rightly observed by the learned Tribunal, the respondent
shall be entitled to the benefit as “late entrant” under Regulation 15 as
B well as the benefit of Regulation 19(h) of Pension Regulations, 2008. It
is submitted that, as such, Regulation 19 of the Pension Regulations,
2008 is pari materia to Pension Regulations, 1961.
4.2 It is submitted that in accordance with Pension Regulations,
2008, respondent’s pre-commission service as Research Scholar with
C Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal (a Government College) and as a Medical
Officer with BHEL, totalling to 6 years 4 months and 6 days should also
be counted towards his total qualifying pensionable service. It is submitted
that thus the respondent’s total qualifying pensionable service comes to
22 years 11 months and 2 days (15 years 27 days of Army Service + 6
years 4 months and 6 days of pre-commission service + 1 and half years
D of ante-date seniority).
4.3 It is further submitted that even otherwise the learned Tribunal
treated the respondent’s case as a “late entrant” in the peculiar facts
and circumstances as mentioned in para 4 of the impugned judgment
which read as under:
E
i) As admitted by the appellants, respondent was granted PC at a
late age of 39 years 2 months, in the organizational interest, to meet the
acute shortage of medical-specialist in the Army prevailing at that point
of time, thereby relaxing the maximum age limit 32 years;

F ii) Over a period of time, the medical specialists became surplus
in Army thereby causing acute stagnation in the promotions/career
progression and lack of opportunity to do in-house specialist courses,
which prompted the respondent to seek pre-mature release from the
Army so as to establish his career elsewhere at that young age;
iii) the respondent was 42 years of age when he had applied for
G
the pre-mature severance on 15.04.2000, which was initially rejected by
the Appellants on the false ground that there was shortage of medical
specialists in the Army; and
iv) the appellants inordinately delayed in accepting respondent’s
request which happened only with the kind indulgence of the J&K High
H
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER v. ABHIRAM VERMA 65
[M. R. SHAH, J.]

Court and accordingly by the time respondent was released from the A
Army, he had already crossed the age of 49 years of age which was too
late to establish his practice or start a new career.
4.4 It is further submitted by Shri Vikas Singh, learned Senior
Counsel that, as such, Pension Regulations, 2008 shall be applicable. It
is submitted that as held by this Court in the cases of D.S. Nakara v. B
Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 and K.J.S Buttar v. Union of
India, (2011) 11 SCC 429 for the purpose of granting benefit under the
new Pension Rules, the date of retirement is irrelevant, though the revised
scheme would be operative from the date mentioned in the new Pension
Rules but would bring its umbrella even to the pensioners who retired
after the specified date w.e.f. and their pension would be payable C
accordingly with effect from the said specific date.
4.5 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Union
of India v. Lt. Col. P.S. Bhargava, (1997) 2 SCC 28 (Paras 7, 18 to
20), it is submitted that as held by this Court in the context of Army,
there is no difference between “resignation” and “voluntary retirement” D
because in either case prior permission of the government would be
required for an Army Personnel to leave the service. It is submitted that
this Court also held that the policy letter issued by the Army Headquarter,
thereby denying pension and other terminal benefits to the persons who
resigned to the service cannot be given effect to being contrary to the E
Pension Regulations which does not have such stipulation.
4.6 It is submitted that even otherwise the respondent had submitted
his application on 15.04.2000 on a printed form prescribed by the
appellants which has both options of “resignation” and “premature
retirement” printed on it. It is submitted that as such the respondent’s F
real intention was to seek premature retirement but he was told that
since he had less than 10 years of service at that point of time, as per
para 7 & 13 of the Army HQ Policy dated 26.03.1998, the premature
release before 10 years of service has to be termed as “resignation” and
not as “premature retirement”. It is submitted therefore his application
was treated as one of “resignation” and not as “premature retirement” G
due to the aforesaid technical reason, even though the respondent has
no intention to resign and thereby losing his service benefits, if any.
4.7 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid
decisions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal.
H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A 5. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the respective
parties at length.
The short question posed for the consideration of this Court is,
whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is
entitled to the benefit of Regulation 15 of Pension Regulations, 1961 as
B a “late entrant” and therefore entitled to the pensionary benefits?
The incidental question which is posed for the consideration of
this Court is, whether the resignation tendered by the respondent on
15.04.2000 can be said to be a “resignation” or “voluntary retirement”.
5.1 While considering the aforesaid issues, even at the cost of
C repetition, few dates and events are required to be considered, which
are as under:
i) the respondent applied for resignation (now according to the
respondent it was a request for voluntary retirement) on the ground
of lack of promotional aspects on 15.04.2000;
D
ii) the application for resignation came to be rejected by the DG,
Medical Services (Army) on 4.9.2000;
iii) the respondent filed a statutory complaint against the rejection
of his resignation on 24.03.2001;
E iv) the respondent’s statutory complaint came to be rejected by
the Under Secretary, Government of India on 14.03.2002;
v) the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir by judgment and order
dated 11.10.2006 quashed the order of the Under Secretary who
rejected the respondent’s resignation and consequently directed
F the department to consider the case of the resignation afresh;
vi) respondent’s resignation came to be accepted in pursuance of
the High Court’s order vide communication/letter dated 31.01.2007,
however, it was stated that the respondent is not entitled to any
terminal benefits except for encashment of leave;
G vii) the name of the respondent came to be struck off from the
Army Medical Corps vide Movement Order w.e.f. 23.4.2007;
viii) as per paras 7 & 13 of the Army HQ Policy dated 26.3.1998,
the qualifying service for the purpose of premature retirement
was 10 years of service, otherwise his application has to be termed
H as “resignation”;
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER v. ABHIRAM VERMA 67
[M. R. SHAH, J.]

ix) admittedly the respondent did not complete the ten years of A
service on 15.04.2000 when he tendered his resignation and
therefore as such was not eligible to apply for “voluntary
retirement”;
x) when the respondent tendered application for resignation on
15.04.2000, the respondent rendered service for 15 years and 27 B
days only; and
xi) the minimum period of qualifying service actually rendered for
earning retiring pension shall be 20 years as per Regulation 25(a),
however, if an officer is a “late entrant” who, as such, has rendered
service at least for 15 years and who has retired on reaching the C
prescribed age limit for compulsory retirement with at least 15
years commissioned service (actual) as per regulation 15.
6. To bring the case within Regulation 15 and get the benefit as a
“late entrant”, it is the case on behalf of the respondent that his application
tendered on 15.04.2000 was not an application for “resignation”, but it D
was a request for “voluntary retirement”. The submission on behalf of
the respondent that what was tendered on 15.04.2000 was not an
application for “resignation” but it was an application for “voluntary
retirement” has no substance and cannot be accepted for the following
reasons:
E
i) that the qualifying service for the purpose of “voluntary
retirement” is minimum 10 years’ service. On 15.04.2000, the
respondent did not complete 10 years of service and therefore
was not eligible for applying for “voluntary retirement” and
therefore on 15.04.2000 otherwise also he could not have applied
for “voluntary retirement”; F
ii) in the application dated 15.04.2000, the cause shown was lack
of promotional aspects. Even the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir
in its judgment and order dated 11.10.2006 which was filed by the
respondent specifically noted the submission on behalf of the
respondent that the “petitioner having joined the Commission at a G
later stage has no chance of promotion to the first selection, i.e.,
to the rank of Colonel in the Army Medical Corps. Petitioner
moved an application dated 15th April, 2000 before the respondents’
seeking “resignation” from the army on the ground of non-
availability of promotional prospects and ineligibility to acquire
H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A technical skill”. Even the High Court in its judgment and order
dated 11.10.2006 treated and considered the application submitted
by the respondent dated 15.04.2000 as application for
“resignation” and proceeded on that footing. Even the subsequent
petition filed before the High Court being SWP 454/2008, the
respondent never contended that it was an application for
B
“voluntary retirement”. If we see the averments in the writ petition
all throughout the word used by the respondent is “resignation”.
Therefore, only as an afterthought and to get the benefit of “late
entrant” under Regulation 15, now it is the case on behalf of the
respondent that what was meant by him at that time was praying
C for “voluntary retirement” and it was not an application for
“resignation”;
iii) even as per the applicable rules for premature retirement/
resignation of AMC Officers dated 26.3.1998, a request of an
officer to seek premature retirement/resignation on the ground of
D lack of career prospects shall not be accepted and even if the
officers are permitted to resign, they are not entitled to terminal/
pensionary benefits; and
iv) even from para 6 of the written submissions dated 15.09.2021
filed on behalf of the respondent, it can be seen that the respondent
E has accepted that on 15.04.2000 he was not eligible for “voluntary
retirement” and therefore he used the word “resignation” to get
out of the technical reason. Therefore, it can be said that he has
admitted that on 15.04.2000 he did not fulfil the criteria for
“voluntary retirement” as on that day he had not completed 10
years of service.
F
Therefore, from the aforesaid facts, the only conclusion would be
that on 15.04.2000 the respondent tendered “resignation” for lack of
promotional avenues/aspects and it was not a case of “voluntary
retirement”.

G 7. Even, there is a distinction between the “resignation” and
“voluntary retirement”. A person can resign at any time during his service,
however, an officer cannot ask for premature/voluntary retirement unless
he fulfils the eligibility criteria.
8. This Court had an occasion to consider the distinction between
“resignation” and “voluntary retirement” in the case of Senior Divisional
H
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER v. ABHIRAM VERMA 69
[M. R. SHAH, J.]

Manager, LIC v. Shree Lal Meena, reported in (2019) 4 SCC 479, A
which has been subsequently followed by this Court in the case of BSES
Yamuna Power Ltd. (supra). In paragraph 22, it is observed and held
as under:
“22. The principles in the context of the controversy before us
are well enunciated in the judgment of this Court in RBI v. Cecil B
Dennis Solomon [RBI v. Cecil Dennis Solomon, (2004) 9 SCC
461: 2004 SCC (L&S) 737]. On a similar factual matrix, the
employees had resigned sometime in 1988. The RBI Pension
Regulations came in operation in 1990. The employees who had
resigned earlier sought applicability of these Pension Regulations
to themselves. The provisions, once again, had a similar clause of C
forfeiture of service, on resignation or dismissal or termination.
The relevant observations are as under: (SCC pp. 467-68, paras
10)
“10. In service jurisprudence, the expressions “super-
annuation”, “voluntary retirement”, “compulsory retirement” D
and “resignation” convey different connotations. Voluntary
retirement and resignation involve voluntary acts on the part
of the employee to leave service. Though both involve voluntary
acts, they operate differently. One of the basic distinctions is
that in case of resignation it can be tendered at any time, but in E
the case of voluntary retirement, it can only be sought for after
rendering prescribed period of qualifying service. Other
fundamental distinction is that in case of the former, normally
retiral benefits are denied but in case of the latter, the same is
not denied. In case of the former, permission or notice is not
mandated, while in case of the latter, permission of the employer F
concerned is a requisite condition. Though resignation is a
bilateral concept, and becomes effective on acceptance by
the competent authority, yet the general rule can be displaced
by express provisions to the contrary….”
8.1 The law laid down by this Court in the case of Shree Lal G
Meena (supra) has been reiterated by this Court in the subsequent
decision in the case of BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (supra) and in the
subsequent decision, this Court also considered the observations made
in paragraph 26 in Shree Lal Meena (supra) that while pension schemes
do form beneficial legislation in a delegated form, a beneficial construction H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A cannot run contrary to the express terms of the provisions. It is further
observed that the issue cannot be dealt with on a charity principle. When
the legislature, in its wisdom, brings forth certain beneficial provisions in
the form of Pension Regulations from a particular date and on particular
terms and conditions, aspects which are excluded cannot be included in
it by implication. Therefore, having tendered the “resignation”, the
B
respondent has to suffer the consequences and now cannot be permitted
to take ‘U’ turn and say that what the respondent wanted was “premature
retirement” and not “resignation”.
9. Now so far as the reliance placed by the respondent on
Regulation 19(h) and 19(j) of the Pension Regulations of the Army, 2008
C to contend that a period of service in a central autonomous body as well
as period of ante-date of commission granted to an officer in respect of
possession of a Post-Graduate Qualification shall also be counted for
the purpose of pensionable service, the same cannot be accepted, firstly
on the ground that the same was not raised before the High Court/AFT.
D Even otherwise also, the Pension Regulations of the Army, 2008 shall
not be applicable to the case of the respondent as the respondent would
be governed by the Pension Regulations, 1961, which have no pari
materia provisions like Regulation 19(h) and 19(j) of the Pension
Regulations of the Army, 2008. The same has no retrospective
applicability. As such, the respondent had resigned on 15.04.2000 and
E even his resignation was accepted on 31.01.2007, much prior to the
coming into force of the Pension Regulations of the Army, 2008.
10. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decisions of this
Court in the cases of D.S. Nakara (supra) and K.J.S. Buttar (supra)
is concerned, the same shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on
F hand. Similarly, the decision of this Court in the case of Lt. Col. P.S.
Bhargava (supra) shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on
hand and/or the same shall not be of any assistance to the respondent.
In the case before this Court, it was found that the officer completed the
requisite qualifying service which was for the purpose of pensionable
G benefits. However, the same was sought to be denied on the ground that
he voluntarily resigned. In the present case, as observed hereinabove,
the minimum qualifying service for the purpose of pensionable benefits
is 20 years as per Regulation 25(a) and if his case is considered as a
“late entrant”, then 15 years as per Regulation 15.

H
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER v. ABHIRAM VERMA 71
[M. R. SHAH, J.]

11. In light of the above findings, it is required to be considered A
whether the respondent can be said to be a “late entrant” and is entitled
to the benefit of Regulation 15 as a “late entrant” and the pensionable
benefits or not? Regulation 15 reads as under:
“Regulation 15 – Late Entrants
15. For purposes of the regulations in this Chapter, a “late entrant” B
is an officer who is retired on reaching the prescribed age limit
for compulsory retirement with at least 15 years commissioned
service (actual) qualifying for pension but whose total qualifying
service is less than twenty years (actual).”
As per Regulation 15, a “late entrant” is an officer who is retired C
on reaching the prescribed age limit for compulsory retirement with at
least 15 years commissioned service (actual). As the respondent did not
retire on reaching the prescribed age limit for compulsory retirement,
the respondent cannot be said to be a “late entrant”. The purpose and
object seems to be to give 5 years relaxation/grace for qualifying service D
for earning a retiring pension. As per Regulation 25(a), the minimum
period of qualifying service actually rendered and required for earning a
retiring pension shall be 20 years. However, if an officer is not able to
complete the minimum period of qualifying service, i.e., 20 years and
before completing 20 years of service he is attaining the age of
superannuation and is retired on reaching the prescribed age limit of E
compulsory retirement, but has completed 15 years of qualifying service,
he is considered as a “late entrant” and is entitled to pensionary benefits
by getting 5 years grace period. Therefore, to that extent the same can
be said to be a relaxation/grace of 5 years for getting the benefit of
pensionable benefits provided the case falls within Regulation 15 and an F
officer is a “late entrant”. As observed hereinabove, the respondent
cannot be said to be a “late entrant” and therefore not entitled to the
benefit of Regulation 15 and therefore not entitled to the pensionary
benefits.
12. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the G
present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by
the learned Armed Forces Tribunal dated 9.2.2018 in T.A. No. 25/2017
quashing and setting aside para 2 of letter dated 31.01.2007 to the extent
it denied terminal/pensionary benefits to the respondent and directing
the appellants to process the respondent’s claim for terminal/pensionary
H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A benefits taking his qualifying service as 15 years as regards “late entrant”
in terms of Regulation 15 of the Pension Regulations is hereby quashed
and set aside and it is held that the respondent is not entitled to the
terminal/pensionary benefits as a “late entrant” in terms of Regulation
15 of the Pension Regulations. The present appeal is allowed accordingly,
however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
B
order as to costs.

Ankit Gyan Appeal allowed.

C

D

E

F

G

H