Exclusion of employees who resigned from pension benefits is valid under Article 14, as classifications based on employment status are justifiable and not arbitrary.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. The present writ petition has been filed by 82 petitioners, being ex employees of different Public Sector Insurance Companies (PSICs), challenging the vires of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension (Amendment) Rules, 2019 and the General Insurance (Employees) Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2019 for being discriminatory in nature and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in as much as they seek to exclude persons such as the petitioners, who had resigned/left the services of their respective PSICs before coming into force of such amendments. The petitioners seek a direction to extend mutatis mutandis, the option of pension to the petitioners in the same manner as has been offered to other left over employees of the PSICs, who had retired or taken voluntary retirement or had expired, before coming into force of the said amendment.

2. The petitioners joined the services of different Public Sector Insurance Companies, (impleaded as Respondents), on various dates between 1977 and 1991. While the petitioners were in service, Central Government introduced an index-linked Pension Scheme, vide Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees.) Pension Rules, 1995 and General Insurance (Employees.) Pension Scheme, 1995 (`Pension Rules/Scheme') for the employees of the PSICs in addition to the existing Contributory Provident Fund ("CPF"). The said Pension Rules/Scheme was not mandatory and the employees had an option to either opt for the said Pension Rules/Scheme or continue with CPF. The petitioners did not opt for Pension Rules/Scheme and continued with CPF. For the employees who opted for the said Pension Rules/Scheme, there was also an option for voluntary retirement, which was not otherwise there for other categories of employees. Employees joining the PSICs after 28th June, 1995 were automatically covered under the above Pension Rules/Scheme. Vide amendment dated 16th February, 1996, sub-Clause 2A was added to Clause 19 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Rules, 1960 to introduce the concept of voluntary retirement for the CPF Optees as well. However, the newly inserted sub-Clause provided for completion of 55 years of age for the CPF Optees to seek voluntary retirement, whereas for the Pension Optees, the requirement was qualifying service of 20 years for opting for voluntary retirement. Similar amendment was also brought in respect of PSICs providing general insurance.

3. On 22nd April, 1997, an option was given to the CPF Optees who had joined services on or before 28th June, 1995 to opt for the Pension Rules/Scheme. However, the petitioners did not opt for the same. The petitioners, having put in more than 20 years of qualifying service resigned/left the services of their respective PSICs on various dates between 2000 and 2017. It is stated that the left over employees/CPF employees who did not opt for the Pension Rules/Scheme made representation for one more option to convert into Pension Rules/Scheme. Despite deliberations upon the said representation, no decision in favour of such employees was taken in respect of the same.

4. On 23rd April, 2019, the respondent no.1 promulgated/notified the amendments in the official gazette, which are the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

5. The grievance of the petitioners is that "Final Pension Option" that was introduced in terms of the aforesaid amendments was extended to serving, retired (including those having taken voluntary retirement) and the families of the deceased employees, but not extended to employees who