SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Kirpal Singh – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 256 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.9953 of 2008)
With
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Shamsher Singh Puri – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 257 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.10548 of 2008)
And
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Davinder Singh – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 258 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.10756 of 2008)
Decided On : 10-01-2014
(b) Pension Scheme 1995 - Paras 14, 29 and 30 - Pension - Para 29 speaks of pension on retirement on superannuation - Para 30 stipulates pension on voluntary retirement - Para 14 provides for any other situation and puts eligibility of ten years of qualifying service for pension - Retirement under VRS neither retirement on superannuation nor on voluntary retirement but still a 'retirement' - Covered by para 14 of the Scheme 1995. (Para 11)
(c) Service Law - Retirement - Pension scheme envisaging pension on retirement on superannuation or voluntary retirement - Authorities denying pension on retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) - VRS is a scheme for reduction of manpower by encouraging the employees - Pension schemes are beneficial provisions - Expression 'retirement' should be construed liberally - Retirement under VRS also a retirement for Pension. (Para 11)
Service Law - Retirement - Pension Scheme 1995 and SVRS 2004 - Admissibility of pension - Retirement - Nothing in the context of 1995 Scheme to exclude its beneficial provisions from application to employees opting for voluntary retirement under SVRS 2004 or vice versa - 'Retirement' and admissibility of pension must include retirement not only under Pension Scheme 1995 but also under SVRS 2004 - Besides, any provision for payment of pension, being beneficial in nature, should be interpreted liberally interpretation. (Para 16)
(1968) 1 W.L.R. 1526; AIR 1960 SC 971; (2009) 3 SCC 709; (2003) 7 SCC 336; (1997) 2 SCC 53; (1987) 1 SCC 424 - Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The Insurance Companies floated Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2004 (SVRS 2004) wherein the employees were entitled to apart from ex gratia, gratuity, provident fund, pension, and leave encashment.
The respondents claimed pension accordingly which was denied by the employers on the ground that they did not fulfill the conditions under General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme 1995 (Para 30 -pension on voluntary retirement). The respondents, on the other hand, claimed that they were claiming under para 6 of the SVRS 29094 read with para 14 of Pension Scheme 1995.
The High Court allowed the petition challenging the denial of pension.
Hence these appeals.
Finding of the Court:
Respondents are entitled to pension.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The short question that falls for determination in these appeals is whether the respondents who opted for voluntary retirement from the service of the appellant-companies are entitled to claim pension under the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme 1995. The High Court having answered the question in the affirmative, the appellant-Insurance Companies have appealed to assail that view.
3. The controversy arises in the following backdrop:
4. In exercise of its powers under Section 17A of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, the Central Government made what is described as General Insurance Employee's Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "SVRS of 2004"). Para 3 of the scheme stipulating the eligibility conditions for employees who could opt for voluntary retirement from the services of the insurance company is as under:
"Eligibility
1. All permanent full time employees will be eligible to seek special voluntary retirement under this Scheme provided they have attained the age of 40 years and completed 10 years of qualifying services as on the date of notification.
2. An employee who is under suspension or against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated shall not be eligible to opt for the scheme; Provided that the case of an employee who is under suspension or against whom disciplinary proceeding is pending or contemplated made be considered by the Board of the Company concerned having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the decision taken by the Board shall be final.
5. "In para 5 of the scheme those seeking voluntary retirement were held entitled to ex-gratia amount to be determined according to the said provision. In Para 6 of the scheme were stipulated other benefits to which the employees opting for voluntary retirement under the scheme would be entitled. It reads as under:
6. "Other benefits.-
1. An employee opting for the scheme shall also be eligible for the following benefits in addition to the ex-gratia amount mentioned in para 5 namely:-
a. Provident Fund,
b. Gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972) or gratuity payable under the Rationalisation Scheme, as the case may be;
c. Pension (including commuted value of pension) as per General Insurance (Employee's) Pension Scheme 1995, if eligible. However, the additional notional benefit of the five years of added service as stipulated in para 30 of the said pension Scheme shall not be admissible for the purpose of determining the quantum of pension and commutation of pension.
d. Leave encashment.
2. An employee who is opting for the scheme shall not be entitled to avail Leave Travel Subsidy and also encashment of leave while in service during the period of sixty days from the date of notification of this scheme."
(emphasis supplied)
6. The respondents who opted for voluntary retirement in terms of the SVRS of 2004 afore-mentioned appear to have claimed pension as one of the benefits admissible to them under para 6 above. The claim was rejected by the appellants forcing the respondents to agitate the matter before the High Court in separate writ petitions filed by them. The High Court has by a common order dated 25th January, 2008, allowed the said petitions holding the respondents to be entitled to claim pension. The High Court has taken the view that para 6 of the SVRS of 2004 read with para 14 of the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme 1995 entitled the employees to claim pension so long as they had rendered a minimum of ten years of service in the Corporation/Company from whose service they were seeking retirement. Para 14 of the Pension Scheme 1995 reads as under: "Qualifying Service: Subject to the other condition contained in this scheme, an employee who has rendered a minimum ten years of service in the Corporation or a Company, on the date of retirement shall qualify for pension.
g. "A conjoint reading of para 6 of S
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.