Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
Ramdayal Balai S/o Shri Narain Balai – Petitioner
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1498 of 2017
Decided On : 18-10-2022
Pension - Voluntary Retirement - Pension Scheme, 1995, Chapter-IV, Para-14, Chapter-V, Para-30
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought pension and other benefits after voluntary retirement from the respondent company. The company denied the pension on the grounds that the petitioner had not completed 20 years of service as required by the Pension Scheme, 1995.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not completed 20 years of service, making him ineligible for pension under the Pension Scheme, 1995. The court also noted that the petitioner had suppressed material facts and approached the court without clean hands.
Issues: The main issue was the eligibility of the petitioner for pension and other benefits after voluntary retirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's voluntary retirement did not meet the 20-year service requirement for pension under the Pension Scheme, 1995. The court also emphasized the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and disclosing all material facts.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 10,000 to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority.
ORDER :
1. By way of filing present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
(II) The petitioner who voluntarily retired and completed almost 19 years of service, be declared entitled for pension and commutation of pension under clause 14 of the Pension Scheme, 1995.
(III) The respondents may be directed to release the pension and commutation of pension to the petitioner with interest.
(IV) That the respondents may be further directed to revise the basis pay and other allowances of the petitioner as per revision of pay scales as notified on 08.10.2010 by the Government of India.
(V) The respondents may be further directed to revise the gratuity after revision of pay scale with interest.
(VI) The respondents may also be directed to release GSLI, Leave encashment, MBIS and other retiral benefits with interest to the petitioner.
(VII) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed.
(VIII) The costs of the writ petition may kindly be ordered to be awarded to the petitioner.”
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner joined services in the respondent Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (for short ‘the company’) w.e.f. 14.11.1990, on being appointed against the post of Assistant (Clerk). The petitioner while holding the post of Assistant (Clerk) in the Divisional office, Bhilwara of respondent-company submitted two one month’s notices dated 13.04.2009 (Annex.1 and Annex.R/3) praying to relieve him from services w.e.f. 13.05.2009. The authorities of the respondent-organization directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,35,000/- towards outstanding amount of housing loan, so as to facilitate acceptance of notice dated 13.04.2009. The amount of outstanding house loan was deposited by the petitioner on 17.06.2009. Consequently, notice seeking resignation (Annex.R/3) was accepted by the competent authority and the petitioner was relieved from services w.e.f. 22.06.2009 (Annex.5). The gratuity and provident fund was released in favour of the petitioner, however, the pension and commutation of pension were not released. The petitioner being aggrieved by the denial of pension, submitted numerous representations to the respondents. The respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 04.03.2013 (Annex.14) informed the petitioner that since he had not completed twenty years of qualifying service with the respondent-company, claim for pension is not admissible as per General Insurance (Employees’) Pension Scheme, 1995 (Pension Scheme, 1995)
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner vide notice dated 13.04.2009 (Annex.1), requested respondent-company to accept the notice seeking voluntary retirement from services and accord all retiral benefits. The said application was forwarded by respondent No. 3 to the Regional Office, Jaipur. Learned counsel submitted that respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 13.05.2009 (Annex.2) informed the petitioner that application seeking voluntary retirement had been accepted by the Regional Office, Jaipur subject to clearing the house loan amount of Rs. 4,75,000/- owed by the petitioner to the LIC Housing Finance Limited. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent No. 2 vide communication dated 04.03.2013, in reply to the petitioner’s letter dated 15.02.2013, informed that he had sought voluntary retirement from services w.e.f. 13.05.2009, without completing twenty years of service in the respondent-company, therefore, as per Chapter-5, para-30 of Pension Scheme of 1995), the pension on voluntary retirement cannot be granted in his favour. It was urged that chapter-4, Para-14 of the Pension Scheme, 1995 clearly indicates that a
An employee must fulfill the eligibility criteria, including completing the required years of service, to be entitled to pension benefits under the Pension Scheme, 1995. Additionally, approaching the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the distinction between voluntary retirement and resignation, as well as the forfeiture clause under the Indian Overseas Bank (Employees') Pen....
Pension is a right governed by specific eligibility criteria; failure to meet required service duration leads to denial of benefits.
Resignation and retirement have different legal implications, and the scope of a pension scheme may not extend to resigned employees.
Employees are entitled to benefits only as per the terms of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, and once an employee opts for voluntary retirement and avails the benefits, they cannot claim ignorance of....
The judgment established the distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement, upheld the disqualification of pensionary benefits in case of resignation, and emphasized that the petitioner kn....
Resignation entails forfeiture of past service, making the employee ineligible for pensionary benefits.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
