AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Appellants have challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the first Respondent directing the Appellants to sanction and pay the pension.
The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under:
The first Respondent herein was appointed as a Probationary Inspector on 28.12.1983 and before his appointment, he was called upon to undergo training by the Appellant New India Assurance Company from 18-07-1983 for a period of three months. After the successful completion of the training period, he was selected and appointed vide the appointment order referred to supra and the first Respondent reported to the duty on 31-12-1983.
The second Respondent herein introduced a scheme called the General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) Amendment Scheme, 2003 and in terms of Section 15(c) of the Scheme, the Development Officer had an option to opt for special voluntary retirement package within 60 days of the commencement of the Scheme.
The first Respondent having fulfilled the conditions prescribed for voluntary retirement, made an application on 03-03-2003 seeking voluntary retirement. The said application was accepted and he was relieved from services on 01-04-2003. Though the Petitioner requested for payment of pension as per the Pension Scheme, 1995, the same was not granted. The Respondent No. 1 made several representations for the period from 27-5-2003 till 24-04-2004. His request for grant of pension was not considered. It is under these circumstances that he approached this Court by filing a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India requesting for a direction to the Appellants and Respondent No. 2 to sanction and pay the pension under the 1995 Pension Scheme.
The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival contentions raised by the counsel held that Respondent No. 1 herein has completed 20 years of qualified service inclusive of the period of training for three months before the appointment and as Respondent No. 1 had completed 19 years 6 months and 2 days, considered the qualified service as 20 years under Clauses 18 and 19 of the General Insurance Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and directed to sanction and pay the pension under the Pension Scheme. It is aggrieved by this order, the Appellants have filed this appeal.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and the counsel for Respondent No. 1. Notice to Respondent No. 2 is not taken.
The undisputed facts are that the Petitioner in the writ petition was selected for the post of Inspector vide the appointment order dated 28-12-1983. He was directed to undergo training on General Insurance Marketing in the organization of the Appellants for a period of three months from 18-07-1983 vide their letter dated 29-06-1983. It is thereafter that he was declared successful at the Inspector''s Examination held on 28-10-1983 as notified by the Federation of Insurance Institute, Bombay, and was selected and appointed as Inspector on probation for a period of 12 months. So also, he submitted an application for voluntary retirement on 03-03-2003 as per the scheme called General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) Amendment Scheme, 2003. So far as the question of pension is concerned, it is Clauses 18 and 19 of the General Insurance Employees Pension Scheme 1995 which are applicable and it reads as under:
Broken period of service of less than one year - If the period of service of an employee includes broken period of service of less than one year, then, if such broken period is more than six months it shall be treated as one year and if such broken period is six months or less it shall be ignored.
Counting a period spent on training -Period spent by an employee on training in the Corporation or a Company, as the case may be immediately before his appointment shall count as qualifying service.
Admittedly, the writ Petitioner had completed 18 years 3 months and 2 days as an employee after his appointment and had completed the training of three months from 18-07-1983 till 28-10-1983. So under Clause 19 of the Scheme referred to supra, the period spent by an employee on training in the Corporation or a Company, as the case may, immediately before his appointment has to be counted as a qualifying service. So, if this service is added to the service after his appointment, the total period of qualifying service would be 19 years 6 months and 2 days
As could be seen from Clause 18, it provides that, if the period of service of an employee includes broken period of service of less than one year, then, if such broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as one year and if such broken period is six months or less it shall be ignored. So the learned Single Judge took into consideration the training period and concluded that Respondent No. 1 herein has completed 18 years 6 months and 2 days service and thus, completed 20 years of qualifying service.
It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the training which was provided is for those persons who intend to apply for the post of Inspector and as the said training was given much earlier to the appointment, Clause 19 of the Pension Scheme does not apply to the facts. Now, it is relevant to note that under Clause 19 of the Scheme, the period spent by an employee on training in the Corporation or a Company, immediately before his appointment shall be counted as qualifying service. So from the reading of Clause 19, it can be safely inferred that the training is before the appointment. So far as the words used as "immediately before his appointment", it is contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that there is a gap of 2 months in between the training and the appointment and therefore, he contends that Clause 19 is not applicable.
It is relevant to note that though the writ Petitioner (Respondent No. 1 herein) was appointed vide letter dated 28-12-1983, it is specifically mentioned in the said letter that he was deputed for training for a period of three months from 18-07-1983. After the completion of three months of training, the examination was held on 28-10-1983. When once the examination is held, some time is required for publication of the result and it is thereafter, that the persons who are successful in the examination would be getting an appointment. Therefore, as the Appellants have not given the date on which the results of the Inspectors Examination were declared, they cannot put forth the plea that there is a gap of 2 months from the date of the examination held till the date of his appointment. In our considered opinion, the results must have been declared few days earlier to the appointment and in these circumstances, if we consider Clause 19, it can be inferred that the appointment order was after the successful completion of the training period and immediately before his appointment. It may be that there is a gap of few days from the date of declaration of results and the order of appointment as the word ''immediately'' is a relative term and as Respondent No. 1 herein was required to complete his training in the Corporation for his appointment as Inspector, we hold that the period spent on training has to be considered as the qualifying service under Clause 19 of the Pension Scheme.
It is the further contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants that there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and though the first Respondent herein was relieved from service on 01-04-2003, the writ petition was filed in the year 2009 and therefore, contends that the petition has to be rejected on the ground of delay and latches.
Though the first Respondent herein was relieved from service on 01-04-2003, he submitted a representation seeking pension on 27-05-2003. There was no response to his representation and therefore, he submitted one more representation on 24-04-2004. Despite the second representation, as the Appellants did not consider or respond to the representations, he submitted an application on 16-4-2007 for the information under the Right to Information Act. It is thereafter that in W.P. No. 13215/2005, as this Court held that an employee is entitled to the benefit of Clause 18 of the Pension Scheme 1995 and as he was informed that his claim for pension has not been considered on the ground that he has; not completed 20 years of service, he issued a notice on 29-11-2008 and since there was no response, he approached this Court. So considering the efforts made by the Petitioner for getting the pension, which is a substantial right of a retired employee, we do not think that there is such a delay or latches on the part of the Respondent No. 1 herein, so as to reject his claim for pension. So the perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge, in the context of the circumstances stated above, is just and proper. Hence, we hold that there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.