Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Meghalaya High Court has allowed voluntary retirement and granted pensionary benefits to an assistant teacher who had served for 33 years.

The decision was delivered by Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, on Friday (June 14, 2024), highlighting the petitioner's struggle and dedication over decades of service. The court noted “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.”

The ruling came in response to a plea filed by the petitioner, Uttora G. Sangma, an assistant teacher appointed on July 23, 1989, had her services regularized by the Inspector of Schools effective October 29, 1996. However, this regularization was later contested by the state (respondents), citing that the approval was granted by an incompetent authority.

The petitioner, believing she was eligible for voluntary retirement under Rule 38A of the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) Fourth Amendment, Rules 1998, applied for voluntary retirement on September 1, 2022. Her application was rejected on November 29, 2021, which led her to resign on February 1, 2023. This resignation was accepted, and she was later regularized by the Meghalaya Public Service Commission on April 25, 2023. The petitioner's counsel, Advocate S. Deb, argued that her resignation was under the impression that her regularization was valid, making her eligible for VRS and entitled to pensionary benefits.

Contrarily, the respondents contended that the regularization was invalid and her resignation forfeited her past service benefits.

The court, after meticulously examining the material on record and hearing both the parties, noted that the petitioner had served continuously since July 21, 1989, and her belief in her regularization was bona fide. The court observed that Rule 38A requires a three-month notice for voluntary retirement, and the rejection of her VRS application was not properly communicated.

Citing precedents such as T.K. Thanigaivel and Shashikala Devi, the court highlighted that it would be unthinkable for an employee with 33 years of service to willingly forfeit her benefits. The court also observed the petitioner’s genuine intent to seek VRS rather than resignation, which was evident from her actions and the surrounding circumstances. “If pension is not a bounty, but a right which the employee acquires on account of long years of sincere and good work done by him, the Court will be slow in presuming that the employee intended to waive or abandon such a valuable right without any cogent reason. At any rate there ought to be some compelling circumstance to suggest that the employee had consciously given up the right and benefit, which he had acquired so assiduously,” the court noted.

The court further underscored “For a waiver of a legally enforceable right earned by an employee, it is necessary that the same is clear and unequivocal, conscious and with full knowledge of the consequences.”

The court held that, in view of the unique facts and circumstances of the case, where the petitioner cannot be said to be entirely at fault, the petitioner's resignation shall be treated by the respondents as an application for voluntary retirement. The court ordered “consequently be afforded all the retiral benefits, as entitled and permissible. It is further made clear that, the petitioner shall be allowed pension under the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1983.”

Conclusively, the court directed the respondents to grant the petitioner all entitled pensionary and terminal benefits.

 

Cause Title: Uttora G. Sangma v State of Meghalaya [WP(C) No. 82 of 2023]