The High Court of Madras dismissed a writ petition seeking relaxation of pension rules to grant benefits to the petitioner. The Court held that the petitioner resigned before completing 20 years of service, thereby forfeiting eligibility under the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.23436 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.02.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P. No.23436 of 2021
M.Suresh
... Petitioner
Vs.
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass orders for relaxation of the provisions of
Page 1 of 6
W.P.No.23436 of 2021
Paragraph 22 of the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995 in the exercise of powers vested in Paragraph 54 A of the said scheme in the light of the representation, dated 10.12.2019 and to grant pensionary benefits.
| For Petitioner | : | Mr.R.Subhash for |
|---|---|---|
| Mr.M.Ravi | ||
| For Respondents | ||
| For R1 | : | Mr.A.Veeramani, |
| Central Government Counsel | ||
| For R2 and R3 | : | Mr.V.Perumal |
ORDER
This Writ petition is filed to direct the first respondent to consider the
claim of the petitioner and pass orders for relaxation of the provisions of paragraph 22 of the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995 in exercise of powers vested in paragraph 54 A of the said scheme in the light of the representation, dated 10.12.2019 and to grant pensionary benefits.
2. The petitioner was working as Assistant in the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. at Chennai. He made a representation on 23.02.2007
Page 2 of 6
W.P.No.23436 of 2021
seeking permission to go on voluntary retirement and to relieve him on that score from 28.02.2007. However, the petitioner has given resignation on 26.02.2007 and his resignation has also been accepted on 01.03.2007 and thereafter the petitioner got relieved from service. Now the petitioner claims that similarly placed persons have been given with pensionary benefits and hence he has also given representation by stating that he had completed 19 years 7 months and 23 days of service and that he is eligible for pension. But his claim was rejected stating that he did not have the qualifying years of service to get the pensionary benefits.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
has resigned his job and joined some other service and so he had sent a representation to relax the rules prescribing minimum service for getting pensionary benefits for persons going on voluntary retirement, as per Regulations 31 of the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995.
Page 3 of 6
W.P.No.23436 of 2021
4. There is no quarrel on the point that the petitioner has given resignation despite his representation for voluntary retirement was rejected. This is also not in dispute that the request for voluntary retirement was not conceded for want of qualifying service. Having known the fact that qualifying service required for voluntary retirement is 20 years, the petitioner had chosen to give resignation before attaining the said eligibility. Now the petitioner has filed this Writ petition after a lapse of 11 years. Having known about the consequence of resignation, this petition has been filed as an after thought.
5. According to Regulation 22 of the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995, Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination or compulsory retirement of an employee from the Corporation or a company shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. As the petitioner went on resignation, this rule is squarely applicable to him.
6. The petitioner has not only taken the risk of opting to go on resignation, he also accepted to be relieved before completing 20 years of Page 4 of 6
W.P.No.23436 of 2021
service. As the petitioner does not have the fundamental eligibility to go on voluntary retirement and he had only resigned his job and went away, he is not entitled to get the benefits attached to Voluntary Retirement. I find no
merits in this petition.
7. Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
19.02.2024
Index: Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No vum
To
Page 5 of 6
W.P.No.23436 of 2021
R.N.MANJULA ,J.
vum
W.P. No.23436 of 2021
19.02.2024
Page 6 of 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an employee who resigned before attaining 20 years of qualifying service is entitled to relaxation of rules to claim pensionary benefits.
Whether resignation entails forfeiture of past service under Regulation 22 of the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995.
Whether the petitioner is eligible for pensionary benefits after opting for resignation having known the consequence.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
M. Suresh
The Union of India
The Chairman cum Managing Director, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
The Deputy General Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
R.N. Manjula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
