- (1.) Petitioner before this Court seeks quashing of the order dated 26.5.2011, 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. 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.
(2.) 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.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the material on record. Facts which are not disputed are as follows :- 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. 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 :- 587208-3 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.;