Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Friday, 07 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2019-03-15 partly_allowed

M. VENKATESWARA RAO vs ANDHRA BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR

Bench: 3 — Ranjan Gogoi, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, K.M. Joseph

In Brief

This case concerns whether employees who resigned before pension schemes were enacted can claim benefits under those schemes when they are given retrospective effect. The Court held that voluntary retirement and resignation are distinct legal concepts. Resignation forfeits service and disqualifies from pensions, while voluntary retirement requires statutory creation. Employees who resigned before pension regulations existed cannot benefit from retrospective application, as the regulations explicitly disqualify resignees. To allow such claims would be self-defeating: if the regulations had existed when they resigned, they would have forfeited benefits anyway. The Court distinguished earlier cases and upheld pension scheme exclusions.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Service Law Pension and Retiral Benefits Statutory Interpretation Resignation vs Voluntary Retirement

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login