The central legal point established in the judgment is that administrative instructions cannot override the provisions of a statutory Scheme, and the rejection of a pension claim based on guidelines not in conformity with the Scheme is illegal and not tenable in law.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 13382 of 2007, whereby the petitioner, an employee of National Insurance Company Ltd. has sought pension in terms of General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995, on completion of 10 years of qualifying service. This order shall also dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 978 of 2005, wherein the petitioner, an employee of United India Insurance Company Ltd., has sought pension under the aforesaid Scheme on completion of 10 years qualifying service. Similarly, in Civil Writ Petition No. 19331 of 2006, the petitioner, an employee of the New India Assurance Company, has again claimed pension in terms of the aforesaid Scheme, after putting in more than 10 years of qualifying service. Since the questions raised in all the three petitions are common questions of law and facts, all these three petitions are being disposed by a common order. However, for the facility of reference, facts are taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 13382 of 2007.

2. The claim of the petitioner in the said writ petition is for quashing of the order dated 10.1.2007 (Annexure P.1), whereby the claim of the petitioner for pension in terms of the Pension Rules, as are applicable to the respondent-Company, was declined.

3. The petitioner joined the services under the respondent on 14.1.1988. The respondent is a Subsidiary Company of the General Insurance of Corporation of India formed by the Central Government for the purposes of superintending, controlling and carrying on the business of insurance under Section 9 of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (for short the Act).

4. On 1.1.2004, the General Insurance Employees Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004 (hereinafter to be referred as `the Scheme) was notified by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 17-A of the Act. All permanent/full time employees of all the Insurance Companies were eligible to seek voluntary retirement provided they have attained the age of 40 years and completed 10 years of qualifying service as on the date of notification. The Scheme was to remain open for a period of 60 days from the date of notification in the Official Gazette. Para 6 of the notification of the Scheme provides for other benefits. Para 6(1)(c) of the Scheme, contemplates to provide pension including commuted value of pension. The relevant clause reads as under:

6(1)(c) pension (including commuted value of pension) as per General Insurance (Employees) 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.

5. On 14.1.2004, the respondent-National Insurance Company issued the administrative guidelines (Annexure P.5), after the publication of the Scheme in the Official Gazette. No such guidelines were issued by the other two Companies However, while issuing the said guidelines, the said Company incorporated another clause in the matters of payment of pension payable under the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Pension Scheme). The same reads as under:

Those who have not completed twenty years of minimum service for eligibility of pension as on the date of Notification shall not be entitled for any pension. The additional notional benefit of five years of added service as stipulated in Para 30(5) of the Pension Scheme, 1995 shall not be admissible for the purpose of determining the quantum of pension and commutation of pension.

6. The stand of the respondent is that in terms of Annexures P.5, the petitioner is not entitled to pension as he has not completed 20 years of minimum service and therefore, the order declining request of the petitioner for pension does not warrant any interference in writ jurisdiction. In the alternative