IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
V. Latha - Appellant
Versus
Chief Manager, Pension Department, Mumbai - Respondent
W.P. No. 6322 of 2020
Decided On : 10-01-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the eligibility for pension requires adherence to specific qualifications and timelines outlined in pension schemes. (Para 1) |
| 2. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. court observes that the petitioner did not meet the qualifying service requirement for the pension. (Para 7 , 9 , 11 , 13) |
| 4. the amendment's applicability is scrutinized, reinforcing the need for compliance with set rules. (Para 16) |
ORDER :
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 04.10.2019 and quash the same and consequential direction to the respondents to accept the Form-II submitted to the respondents vide application dated 21.08.2019 under the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995 and to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The case of the petitioner is that she is an ex-employee of the respondents' company and she had opted the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme offered by the respondents' company and voluntarily retired from the service of the respondents' company on 12.03.2004 and the petitioner had completed 19 years 7 months and 9 days during her tenure in the said company. The respondents' company made amendment General Insurance (Employees') Pension Amendment Scheme, 2019 in the Pension Scheme and made a provision to give one more option to join in the Pension Scheme and required to submit Form-II as per the Scheme.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that she submitted Form-II for the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995 and as per the new amendment of the scheme to the respondents' company on 21.08.2019 before the second respondent and forwarded the same to the 1st respondent. After receipt of the same, the first respondent vide order dated 04.10.2019 rejected the Form II submitted by the petitioner stating that the petitioner is not eligible for pension under the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Amendment Scheme, 2019. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on sub paragraph 11 of para 3 inserted vide Notification of the Ministry of Finance (Department of Financial Services), New Delhi dated 23.04.2019 and the same is extracted hereunder :-
(11) joined the service of the Corporation or a Company, as the case may be, before the 28th day of June, 1995, but retired before the said date:
(a) within one hundred and twenty days from the said date:
(i) exercise an option in writing to become the member of the Fund;
(ii) authorise the Corporation or the Company , as the case may be, to transfer the entire contribution of the Corporation or of the Company to their provident Fund that may accrue to them if any revision of scales of pay is effected from a date prior to the date of their retirement;
(b) within sixty days after the expiry of one hundred and twenty days specified in clause (a) (i) refund to the Corporation or the Company, as the case may be, the entire amount of the Corporation's contribution or the Company's contribution to Provident Fun and interest accrued thereon received by the employee on retirement along with the entire amount of non-refundable withdrawal, if any, made from the Corporation's contribution or Company's contribution, as the case may be, to the Provident Fund account.
(ii) pay to the Corporation or the Company, as the case may be , an amount equal to 0.3 times of the amount arrived at in sub-clause (i) above, as a one time contribution to the fund;
Provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 51 of this Scheme, pension to such employees shall become payable from the said date.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on Note 3 inserted vide Notification of the Ministry of Finance (Department of Financial Services), New Delhi dated 23.04.2019 and the same is extracted hereunder :-
B
U.P. Roadways Retired Officials & Officers Assn. v. State of U.P.
Shashikala Devi v. Central Bank of India
U.P. Roadways Retired Officials & Officers Assn. v. State of U.P.
Pension is a right governed by specific eligibility criteria; failure to meet required service duration leads to denial of benefits.
Entitlement of retiral benefits - Counting of the periods of work-charged service and suspension, as qualifying service, shall make the total service of the petitioner as 20 years, which shall entitl....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to exercise the option to join a Pension Scheme, despite multiple opportunities, constitutes waiver of the right to claim benefits....
Resignation under CCS Pension Rules Rule 26 forfeits past service, barring pensionary benefits to employee or family despite service rendered; distinct from voluntary retirement; no retrospective app....
The court established that work-charged and unjustified suspension periods count towards qualifying service for pension eligibility, even post voluntary retirement, with limits on retrospective claim....
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.