LexSHEELKUMAR JAIN versus THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011) 9 S.C.R. 574 ~ ... A SHEELKUMAR JAIN v. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6013 of 2011) JULY 28, 2011 ., B • [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] General Insurance (Termination, Superannuation and Retirement of Officers and Development Staff) Scheme, 1976 c - Clause 5 - General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995 - Clause 22 and 30 - Resignation tendered by appellant in 1991 - Competent authority accepted the same and relieved him from service - In 1995, Pension ... ... Scheme introduced which was made applicable to employees D who were in the service of respondent no.1-Company on or i after first January, 1986 but had retired before the first day of November, 1993 and had exercised an option for same, - Appellant opting for the Pension Scheme, 1995 on 20. 10.1995 - Entitlement of appellant to opt for the said E Scheme - Held: Sub-clause (1) of Clause 5 does not state that the termination of service pursuant to the notice given by an employee to leave or discontinue his service amounts to "resignation" nor does it state that such termination of service amounts to "voluntary retirement" - The said sub-clause does F not also make a distinction between "resignation" and "voluntary retirement" - Clauses 22 and 30 of the Pension Scheme, 1995 were not in existence when the appellant served his notice - Both the appellant and respondent no. 1 acted in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (1) of G Clause 5 of the Scheme, 1976 at the time of determination ..,., .. of service of the appellant in the year 1991 - Clause 22 of the Pension Scheme, 1995 states that resignation of an employee from the service of the Company shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not H 574 SHEELKUMAR JAIN v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. 575 LTD. AND ORS. -. - qualify for pensionary benefits, but does not define the term A "resignation" - Under sub-clause (1) of Clause 30 of the Pension Scheme, 1995, an employee, who has completed 20 years of qualifying service, may by giving notice of not less than 90 days in writing to the appointing authority retire from ~~ service - Since 'voluntary retirement' unlike 'resignation' does B " not entail forfeiture of past services and instead qualifies for pension, an employee to whom Clause 30 of the Pension Scheme, 1995 applies cannot be said to have 'resigned' from service - In the facts of the instant case, the appellant had completed 20 years qualifying service and had given notice c of not less than 90 days in writing to the appointing authority of his intention to leave service and the appointing authority had accepted notice of the appellant and relieved him from .:. ~ service - Therefore, Clause 30 of the Pension Scheme, 1995 applied to the appellant even though in his notice he had D + used the word 'resign' - Respondents directed to consider the claim of the appellant for pension in accordance with the Pension Scheme, 1995 and intimate the decision to the appellant within three months .. General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995: E Clauses 22 and 30 - Object of - Held: The general purpose of the Pension Scheme, 1995, read as a whole, is to grant pensionary benefits to employees, who had rendered service i.. in the Insurance Companies and had retired after putting in the qualifying service in the Insurance Companies - Clauses F 22 and 30 of the Scheme cannot be so construed as to deprive of an employee of an Insurance Company who had put in the qualifying service for pension and who had voluntarily given up his service after serving 90 days notice in accordance with sub-clause (1) of Clause 5 of the Scheme, G r-' 1976 and after his notice was accepted by the appointing -< authority. The appellant was the employee of respondent no.1- company. On 16.9.1991, he sent a letter to respondent H 576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011J 9 S.C.R. A no.1-company saying that he would like to resign from his post and requesting to treat the letter as three months notice and to relieve him from service. His resignation was accepted with effect from 16.12.1991 i.e. after completion of three months. Accordingly appellant was B relieved from his services on 16.12.1991. Thereafter, the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995 was made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 17-A of the Act. The Pension
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.