AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. B. Rajendran, J. - These Writ Petitions have been filed seeking declaration declaring that the petitioners are entitled to pro-rata pension for the years of service rendered by them, with arrears of pension from the date of their voluntary retirement with interest from the date on which it became payable.
The case of the petitioners is that they have obtained voluntary retirement under the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2004. As the petitioners are subscribers of Insurance Employees Pension Scheme 1995, they are entitled for pension under that scheme. The representations sent by the petitioner for granting them pension has not been considered by the respondents on the ground that they have not completed 20 years of qualifying service. The Pension Scheme 1995 prescribes only 10 years as qualifying service, in order to qualify for pension as per Para 14 of Chapter IV of the Pension Scheme. Hence, they have come forward with the present Writ petitions.
The respondents have filed detailed counter stating that the employees who have put in 20 years of qualifying service alone are entitled to pension under the Regulations. Nowhere in the SVRS was it ever stipulated that the employee who was otherwise ineligible for pension would be entitled to pension or had any right for pro-rata pension. The petitioners consciously opted for SVRS knowing the limitations of the Scheme and the petitioners are ineligible for pension under Para 30 of the 1995 Pension Scheme and the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
In all these case, the petitioners who have completed 20 years of service have opted for voluntary retirement and relaxation was considered up to 5 years as per 13(V) of Pension Regulations, which fact has also been upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2014(1) LLJ 513 in which all the Insurance Companies in India are parties, the relevant portion of the same reads as follows :
"The SVRS of 2004 does not obviously rest the claim for payment of pension on any one of the above two provisions. That is because what is claimed by the employees-respondents before us is not superannuation pension or is it pension on voluntary retirement within the meaning of para 30(supra). As a matter of fact, para 6(1)(c) of the SVRS of 2004 specifically provides that the notional benefit of additional five years to be added to the service of the retiring employee as stipulated in para 30 of the pension scheme shall not be admissible for purposes of determining the quantum of pension and commutation of pension."
In such view of the matter, as the petitioners have changed their stand, they are directed to approach the third respondent by way of a representation. On such representation being made, the third respondent shall consider the representation of the petitioners afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.