Unthinkable For Employee To Throw Away Benefits After 33 Yrs Of Service: Meghalaya HC Directs To Consider Teacher's Plea For Voluntary Retirement
The Meghalaya High Court has directed the State to consider the application of a teacher for voluntary retirement with all retiral benefits and allow pension under the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1983.
A writ petition was filed by the teacher for the regularization of services and the release of pensionary and terminal benefits.
The Bench of Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, while relying on Shashikala Devi vs. Central Bank of India & Ors. (2014 SC), observed, “The writ petitioner in the instant case was faced with a situation, wherein her VRS application stood rejected, her regularization at the mercy of the respondents inspite of her long years of service, and with the impending elections, which she was keen to contest in, in jeopardy, culminated in her tendering her resignation. In this context, the case of Shashikala Devi (supra) also comes to the assistance of the writ petitioner. This decision is relevant as, it would be unthinkable to any employee having served for about 33 years, to throw away due benefits which would have been granted in the usual course, especially after the formal regularization order had been passed on 25.04.2023.”
Advocate S Deb appeared for the Petitioner and Senior GA NG Shyalla and GA ZE Nongkynrih for the Respondents.
The Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 1989, who was regularized by an order passed by the Inspector for Schools. Thereafter the petitioner was transferred and posted as a Ladies’ Social Education Officer and while serving the said post had applied for voluntary retirement of service.
However, the said application was not accepted, on the ground that the petitioner was yet to be regularized and that the voluntary retirement scheme would be applicable only after regularization of the adhoc appointment of the writ petitioner. The petitioner then, while her regularization was still being considered by the Respondents, resigned from service, and the same was accepted.
“The fact that the petitioner was under the bona fide belief that she stood regularized by the order dated 01.09.1998, along with 4(four) other similarly situated teachers cannot be ignored. It was on this belief, notwithstanding the other communications seeking ex-post facto approval for regularization that the petitioner it appears had put in her application for VRS.”, the Court said.
The Court also referred to Rule 38A of the Pension Rules and said that the rule mandates a period of three months’ notice and the appointing authority in the case of rejection was to communicate the same before the expiry of the notice period. In the instant case, however, the Court observed that there was no intimation of rejection, apart from a letter, which was not even communicated to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Respondents to consider the application of voluntary retirement with all consequential retiral benefits.
Cause Title: Smt. Uttora G Sangma v. State of Meghalaya and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:MLHC:545)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate S Deb
Respondents: Senior GA NG Shyalla and GA ZE Nongkynrih
