2014 (1) TMI 1947 - SC - Indian Laws

Entitlement to claim pension under the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme 1995 - Respondents opted for voluntary retirement from the service of the Appellant-companies - HELD THAT - In the case at hand Para 2 of the Pension Scheme 1995 (extracted earlier) defines the expressions appearing in the scheme. But what is important is that such definitions are good only if the context also supports the meaning assigned to the expressions defined by the definition clause. The context in which the question whether pension is admissible to an employee who has opted for voluntary retirement under the 2004 scheme assumes importance as Para 2 of the scheme starts with the words In this scheme, unless the context otherwise requires . There is nothing in the context of 1995 Scheme which would exclude its beneficial provisions from application to employees who have opted for voluntary retirement under the Special Scheme 2004 or vice versa. The term retirement must in the context of the two schemes, and the admissibility of pension to those retiring under the SVRS of 2004, include retirement not only under Para 30 of the Pension Scheme 1995 but also those retiring under the Special Scheme of 2004. That apart any provision for payment of pension is beneficial in nature which ought to receive a liberal interpretation so as to serve the object underlying not only of the Pension Scheme 1995 but also any special scheme under which employees have been given the option to seek voluntary retirement upon completion of the prescribed number of years of service and age. These appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Respondents who opted for voluntary retirement under the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme (SVRS) of 2004 are entitled to claim pension under the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme 1995.
2. Interpretation of the eligibility criteria for pension under the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme 1995 in the context of the SVRS of 2004.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Entitlement to Pension under SVRS of 2004

The primary issue in these appeals is whether the Respondents, who opted for voluntary retirement under the SVRS of 2004, are entitled to claim pension under the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme 1995. The High Court had affirmed this entitlement, leading the Appellant-Insurance Companies to challenge this view.

The SVRS of 2004, formulated under Section 17A of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, outlined the eligibility criteria for employees opting for voluntary retirement. Specifically, it required employees to be permanent full-time employees, aged 40 years or above, and to have completed 10 years of qualifying service.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Eligibility Criteria

The High Court's decision hinged on the interpretation of Para 6 of the SVRS of 2004, which stipulated that employees opting for voluntary retirement would be entitled to benefits including Provident Fund, Gratuity, Pension (as per the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme 1995), and Leave Encashment. The Respondents claimed pension under this provision, which was initially rejected by the Appellants, prompting the Respondents to seek judicial intervention.

The High Court interpreted Para 6 of the SVRS of 2004 in conjunction with Para 14 of the Pension Scheme 1995, which states that an employee with a minimum of ten years of service is eligible for pension upon retirement. The Appellants, however, argued that the pension eligibility under the Pension Scheme 1995, specifically Para 30, required twenty years of qualifying service for voluntary retirement.

The Supreme Court found merit in the Respondents' argument that their voluntary retirement under the SVRS of 2004 was distinct from the general provisions of the Pension Scheme 1995. The SVRS of 2004 did not adopt Para 30's twenty-year service requirement but instead aligned with Para 14's ten-year service requirement.

The Court emphasized that the SVRS of 2004 aimed to reduce surplus manpower by offering benefits like ex-gratia payment and pension, which were not ordinarily available. Therefore, the term "retirement" in Para 14 of the Pension Scheme 1995 should be interpreted liberally to include those retiring under the SVRS of 2004, thus entitling them to pension benefits.

The Court also highlighted that statutory definitions should not be read in isolation but in context, supporting a liberal interpretation of "retirement" to include voluntary retirement under the SVRS of 2004. This interpretation aligns with the beneficial nature of pension provisions, intended to favor the grant rather than the refusal of benefits.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the Respondents who opted for voluntary retirement under the SVRS of 2004 are entitled to claim pension under the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme 1995, provided they meet the ten-year qualifying service requirement. The appeals were dismissed, reinforcing the liberal interpretation of pension eligibility criteria to support the beneficial intent of the pension provisions.