9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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. - T.S. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Dinesh Mathur, Adv., MS. Jyoti Dastidar, Adv., M/s. Dua Associates, Mr. S.L. Gupta, Adv., Mr. Debasis Misra, adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv., Dr. S.K. Verma, Adv., Mr. Gautam NArayan, Adv., Mr. Mubashir Mushtaq, Adv., Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Adv. JUDGMENT T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notional benefit of the five years of added service as stipulated in para 30 of the said pension Scheme shall not be admissible for the purpose of determining the quantum of pension and commutation of pension. (d) Leave encashment. (2) An employee who is opting for the scheme shall not be entitled to avail Leave Travel Subsidy and also encashment of leave while in service during the period of sixty days from the date of notification of this scheme. (Emphasis supplied) 6. The Respondents who opted for voluntary retirement in terms of the SVRS of 2004 afore-mentioned appear to have claimed pension as one of the benefits admissible to them under para 6 above. The claim was rejected by the Appellants forcing the Respondents to agitate the matter before the High Court in separate writ petitions filed by them. The High Court has by a common order dated 25th January, 2008, allowed the said petitions holding the Respondents to be entitled to claim pension. The High Court has taken the view that para 6 of the SVRS of 2004 read with para 14 of the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme 1995 entitled the employees to claim pension so long as they had rendered a minimum of ten years of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t voluntary retirement in terms of para 30 of the Pension Scheme 1995 which is a general provision and which stipulates twenty years of qualifying service for being eligible to claim pension nor was it a case where the SVRS of 2004 either specifically or by necessary implication adopted para 30 of the Pension Scheme 1995 for determining the eligibility of those seeking retirement under the said scheme. The Respondents had, it was contended, voluntarily retired pursuant to the SVRS of 2004 which was different from what was envisaged under para 30 of the Pension Scheme 1995. The condition of eligibility for pension stipulated under para 30 viz. twenty years of qualifying service had, therefore, no application to the Respondents implying thereby that the claim for pension ought to be seen in the light of Para 14 of the Pension Scheme 1995 treating retirement under the Special Scheme of 2004 also as a retirement for the purposes of that para. 10. We find considerable force in the contention urged on behalf of the Respondents. The Pension Scheme 1995 provides for superannuation pension and pension on voluntary retirement . Superannuation pension is regulated by para 29 of the Pension Sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntitlement for those seeking the benefit of SVRS of 2004, the only other provision which can possibly be invoked for such pension is para 14 (supra) that prescribes a qualifying service of ten years only as a condition of eligibility. The only impediment in adopting that interpretation lies in the use of the word 'retirement' in Para 14 of the Pension Scheme 1995. A restricted meaning to that expression may mean that Para 14 provides only for retirements in terms of Para (2)(t)(i) to (iii) which includes voluntary retirement in accordance with the provisions contained in Para 30 of the Pension Scheme. There is, however, no reason why the expression 'retirement' should receive such a restricted meaning especially when the context in which that expression is being examined by us would justify a more liberal interpretation; not only because the provision for payment of pension is a beneficial provision which ought to be interpreted more liberally to favour grant rather than refusal of the benefit but also because the Voluntary Retirement Scheme itself was intended to reduce surplus manpower by encouraging, if not alluring employees to opt for retirement by offering the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the word to have a somewhat different meaning in different sections of the Act depending upon the subject or the context. That is why all definitions in statutes generally begin with the qualifying words unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context . This Court observed: The main basis of this contention is the definition of the word insurer in the Section 2(9) of the Act. It is pointed out that that definition begins with the words insurer means and is therefore exhaustive. It may be accepted that generally the word insurer has been defined for the purposes of the Act to mean a person or body corporate, etc., which is actually carrying on the business of insurance, i.e., the business of effecting contracts of insurance of whatever kind they might be. But Section 2 begins with the words in this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context and then come the various definition clauses of which (9) is one. It is well settled that all statutory definitions or abbreviations must be read subject to the qualification variously expressed in the definition clauses which created them and it may be that even where the definition is exhaustive inasmuch as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various terms have been defined, open with the words in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires which indicates that the definitions, as for example, that of Family , which are indicated to be conclusive may not be treated to be conclusive if it was otherwise required by the context. This implies that a definition, like any other word in a statute, has to be read in the light of the context and scheme of the Act as also the object for which the Act was made by the Legislature. While interpreting a definition, it has to be borne in mind that the interpretation placed on it should not only be not repugnant to the context, it should also be such as would aid the achievement of the purpose which is sought to be served by the Act. A construction which would defeat or was likely to defeat the purpose of the Act has to be ignored and not accepted. Where the definition or expression, as in the instant case, is preceded by the words unless the context otherwise requires , the said definition set out in the Section is to be applied and given effect to but this rule, which is the normal rule may be departed from if there be something in the context to show that the definition could no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
