A teacher in Meghalaya was fortunate enough to have her resignation considered as voluntary retirement thanks to the Meghalaya High Court.
The teacher’s petition claimed that since she had joined as assistant teacher in 1989, she had put in 33 years of service. And therefore, she had a right to pension and other terminal benefits.
The said teacher’s appointment had been regularised with effect from October 1996, by the Inspector of Schools’ order dated 1 September 1998. However, when she put in a request for voluntary retirement in 2022, under Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1983, her request was rejected saying that only those whose service had been regularised were eligible for the scheme; and that since her employment was regularised by a ‘incompetent authority’, it could not be considered valid.
While waiting for her services to be regularised, she put in her resignation to contest the elections in February 2023. In April, her service was regularised with effect from September 1998. Therefore, the petitioner demanded that her resignation be treated as voluntary retirement.
The respondents maintained that by resigning, the teacher had surrendered her rights and entitlements.
The Meghalaya High Court, however, ruled in her favour, entitling her to benefits saying that she was under the bona fide impression that her services were regularised by the order dated 01.09.1998 and that she was eligible for the VR scheme under the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension), Rules 1998.
While the Court did admit that under normal circumstances, resignation from service would mean giving up of past service, in her situation, the Court acknowledged that if the petitioner had not resigned after her VRS request was rejected, she would have been entitled to the benefits since her service was regularised by the order dated 24 April 2023.
The Court recognised the fact that the teacher’s regularisation depended entirely on the respondents, even though she had put in three decades of services, and her VRS request was rejected.. Additionally, she wished to contest the elections so had no option but to resign. These circumstances, as per the Court, were compelling enough to suggest that the teacher/petitioner was at no fault.
