Service Law – Voluntary Retirement – Appellant-ex-employees of the respondent Insurance Companies went out of service taking advantage of the General Insurance Employees’ Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004 (SVRS-2004 Scheme) – Appellants contended that they were also entitled to claim benefits under the earlier scheme known as the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995, which inter alia provided that qualifying service of an employee, retiring under 1995 scheme, would be increased by a period not exceeding 5 years, subject to certain conditions – Held: The SVRS-2004 Scheme specifically excluded the benefit of additional 5 years’ service of the 1995 Scheme for purpose of determining the quantum of pension and commutation of pension to such employees who availed retirement under the SVRS2004 Scheme – The SVRS scheme being a Scheme u/s.17-A of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, it was not appropriate to add or subtract terms from the Scheme, which has a statutory flavour – Thus, such statutory or contractual voluntary retirement schemes as the SVRS-2004 Scheme have to be strictly adhered to, and the very objective of having such Schemes would be defeated, if parts of other schemes are sought to be imported into such voluntary retirement schemes – General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 – s.17-A.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is, thus, quite apparent that clause 6(c), of the General Insurance Employees’ Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004 (SVRS-2004 Scheme) as part of the overall package, clearly stated that the notional benefit of five (5) years of added service, as stipulated in para 30 of the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995, would not be admissible for purposes of determining the quantum of pension and commutation of pension to such employees who availed retirement under the SVRS-2004 Scheme. Suffice to say that the SVRS-2004 Scheme provided for additional benefits beyond the 1995 Scheme, while simultaneously curtailing this aforesaid aspect, specifically. Despite this clear stipulation, the appellants sought the benefit of these very five (5) added notional years of service, for calculation of their pension, under the SVRS-2004 Scheme, in addition to the other benefits offered. This demand was declined by the respondent Insurance Company. [Para 6] [647-C-D]
2. The question for consideration is whether the beneficiaries under the SVRS-2004 Scheme, which specifically excludes the benefit of additional five (5) years’ service of the 1995 Scheme, would still be entitled to claim the said amount contrary to the explicit terms. The answer to this question is in the negative. It has to be appreciated that the SVRS-2004 Scheme is statutory in character, being a Scheme under Section 17-A of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. It would not be appropriate to add or subtract terms from the Scheme, which has a statutory flavour. There could not have been any concession contrary to the terms of the Scheme, and if such a concession was to enure for the benefit of the retirees, then it had to go through the process of a formal notification. [Paras 14, 15] [649-G; 650-A-B]
3. Statutory or contractual, such voluntary retirement schemes as the SVRS-2004 Scheme, thus, have to be strictly adhered to, and the very objective of having such Schemes would be defeated, if parts of other Schemes are sought to be imported into such voluntary retirement schemes. What is offered by the employer is a package as contained in the Schemes of voluntary retirement, and that alone would be admissible. [Para 20] [652D-E]
4. It is, thus, abundantly clear that nothing more would be given than what is stated in the Scheme, and for that matter, nothing less. If the employees avail of the benefit of such a Scheme with their eyes open, they cannot look here and there, under different schemes, to see what other benefits can be achieved by them, by seeking to take advantage of the more beneficial schemes, while simultaneously enjoying the more beneficial aspects of the SVRS-2004 Scheme. [Para 23] [653-CD] Manojbhai N. Shah & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2015) 4 SCC 482; State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr. (1982) 2 SCC 463 : [1983]
1 SCR 8; Y. Sleebachen & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu through Superintending Engineer Water Resources Organisation/Public Works Department & Anr. (2015)
5 SCC 747; Tripura Goods Transport Association & Anr. v. Commissioner of Taxes & Ors. (1998) 2 SCC 264; New India Assurance Company Limited v. Raghuvir Singh Narang & Anr. (2010) 5 SCC 335 : [2010] 4 SCR 299; Bank of India & Ors. v. O. P. Swarnakar & Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 721 : [2002] 5 Suppl. SCR 438; HEC Voluntary Retired Employees Welfare Society & Anr. v. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (2006) 3 SCC 708 : [2006] 2 SCR 678 - referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.