2015 Supreme(Raj) 1928
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Ajay Rastogi, J.K.Ranka, JJ.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others - Appellant
Versus
R.P. Garg - Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal (w)No. 460 of 2009.
Decided On : 5-11-2015
Advocates:
For the Appellant:Rajendra Salecha, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Prahlad Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent present in person:R.P. Garg, Advocate.
An employee who exercises the option to become a member of the Pension Scheme 1995 within the stipulated period and is treated as a pension optee by the employer is eligible for pensionary benefits under the Scheme, even if the employee fails to refund the non-refundable withdrawal made from the company's contribution to the Provident Fund account.
Headnote:
PENSION SCHEME 1995 - GENERAL INSURANCE EMPLOYEES PENSION SCHEME - ELIGIBILITY - RETIREMENT BENEFITS - CONTRIBUTORY PROVIDENT FUND - NON REFUNDABLE WITHDRAWAL - OPTION TO BECOME MEMBER - INTERPRETATION OF SCHEME PROVISIONS - LEGAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING PENSION SCHEMES.
Fact of the Case:
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurance Company) challenged the judgment of the Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent-employee seeking pensionary benefits under the General Insurance Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 (Pension Scheme 1995). The respondent employee joined the insurance company in 1972, exercised the option to become a member of the Pension Scheme 1995 in 1995, and retired from service in 2004. The insurance company contended that the respondent employee was not eligible for pensionary benefits as he failed to refund the non-refundable withdrawal made from the company's contribution to the Provident Fund account as required under the Pension Scheme 1995.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the respondent employee was eligible for pensionary benefits under the Pension Scheme 1995. The Court noted that the respondent employee had exercised the option to become a member of the Pension Scheme 1995 within the stipulated period, and the insurance company had treated him as a pension optee for three years by deducting contributions from his salary and sending them to the Pension Department. The Court further held that the insurance company's decision to delete the respondent employee's name from the list of pension optees in 1999 was not justified as the respondent employee had already been treated as a pension optee and had not been informed of any outstanding dues.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent employee was eligible for pensionary benefits under the Pension Scheme 1995? 2. Whether the insurance company was justified in deleting the respondent employee's name from the list of pension optees in 1999?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the respondent employee was eligible for pensionary benefits under the Pension Scheme 1995 because: - He had exercised the option to become a member of the Pension Scheme 1995 within the stipulated period. - The insurance company had treated him as a pension optee for three years by deducting contributions from his salary and sending them to the Pension Department. - The insurance company's decision to delete the respondent employee's name from the list of pension optees in 1999 was not justified as the respondent employee had already been treated as a pension optee and had not been informed of any outstanding dues. 2. The Court held that the insurance company was not justified in deleting the respondent employee's name from the list of pension optees in 1999 because: - The respondent employee had already been treated as a pension optee for three years. - The insurance company had not informed the respondent employee of any outstanding dues.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and directed the insurance company to pay the respondent employee his pensionary benefits along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum within two months.
JUDGMENT
1. - Instant intra court appeal has been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurance Company) assailing the judgment dated 9.2.2009 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in SBCWP-3679/2004.
2. The moot question for our consideration involved in the instant appeal is whether the respondent-employee of the appellant insurance company is eligible to claim pensionary benefits under the General Insurance Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 (Pension Scheme 1995).
3. The undisputed facts which culled out from the record are that the respondent employee initially joined service in the insurance company on 2.9.1972 and served in various capacity and took voluntary retirement from service on 27.2.2004 after seeking due permission of the competent authority and the respondent employee has not received the retiral dues of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) so far.
4. That the Pension Scheme 1995 came to be notified on 28.6.1995 by the Central Govt, in exercise of power conferred u/S. Section 17-A of the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972 (Act, 1972), the respondent employee has exercised its option in writing within the stipulated period to become a member of the Pension Scheme 1995 on 19.10.1995 and contributory provident fund account was duly adjusted by the company and he was treated to be pension optee in the PF statements pertaining to the years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 and that also indicated that after he has been shown a pension optee, no deductions or contribution of the insurance company were credited to the PF account of the respondent employee and the insurance company started deducting from employer's contribution from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1998 & sent to the Pension Department.
5. It may be further noticed that initially the option was to be exercised by the employee who were in service under Chapter-II para 3 within one hundred twenty days from the notified date to become member of the Fund and if any amount is outstanding has to be refunded within sixty days thereafter under sub-paragraph (d) of para 3(3) of the Scheme 1995. In the case of the respondent employee all the formalities were complied with and after pension scheme being opted the company also started deduction under the Pension Scheme 1995.
6. It may be relevant to note herein that after the first phase was over, fresh options were invited from the employees in the month of April 1997 under the General Insurance (Employees Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 1997) from the employees who could not submit their option earlier under the Pension Scheme of 1995 and there was no occasion for the respondent employee to submit option at that stage as he has been considered to be the pension optee under the Pension Scheme 1995 and included in the list of pension optees and the Insurance Company continuously started deducting contribution and it was sent to the Pension Department till December 1998.
7. At this stage, a letter dated 4.11.1999 was sent by the PF Department, Mumbai to the Pension Department directing that since the respondent employee had not refunded Insurance Company's contribution of Non-Refundable Withdrawal before 26.12.1995, his name accordingly stands deleted from the list of pension optees, which is as per decision of the Pension Department, Head Office, New Delhi vide letter dated 18.1.1996 and thereafter the respondent employee had correspondence with the department and also sent legal notice and despite he averred that it was not a non refundable withdrawal & still if the company is of the view that it was non refundable withdrawal and has to be refunded he is ready to adjust/deposit non refundable withdrawal of Rs. 36,323.44 as on 31.3.1995 with interest, if any, however, permission was not granted and he was asked to accept the provident fund contribution which he did not accept and protested by filing writ petition.
8. The Ld. Single Judge after hearing the parties, allowed the writ petition under order impugned dated 9.2.2009
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
