WP/29403/2023 of JENNIFER CORREYA Vs THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER on 15 October 2026

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent in the proceedings dated 31.07.2019, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to count the petitioner's service rendered prior to the acceptance of her application for voluntary retirement as qualifying service of 20 years and to sanction pension and other pensionary benefits, including arrears thereof.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed in the respondent Department on 12.03.1984 under the disability quota. While so, the petitioner submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement from service on 05.03.2004. However, though the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement was accepted, her claim for pension was rejected on the ground that she had not completed 20 years of qualifying service. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, as on the date of submission of the application for voluntary retirement, the petitioner was short of completing 20 years of service by only six days. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State Bank of Patiala v. Pritam Singh Bedi and Others, reported in AIR 2014 SC 2714, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, if the broken period of service exceeds six months, it shall be treated as one year. Hence, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, since the petitioner was short of completing 20 years of qualifying service by only six days, she is entitled to pension.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would stoutly oppose the aforesaid contention and submit that, as per the Administrative Instructions for Implementation of the Provisions of the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Amendment Scheme, 2019, dated 17.05.2019, Clause 2.3 provides an option for special voluntary retirement under the General Insurance Officers' Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004, to employees who retired prior to 28.06.1995, subject to the mandatory requirement of completing 20 years of qualifying service. In the case in hand, since the petitioner has not completed the minimum qualifying service of 20 years, she is not entitled to pension.

3.1. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the respondents would further submit that, even if this Court arrives at the conclusion that the petitioner is eligible for pension, the terms and conditions stipulated under Clause 5.1 of the aforesaid Scheme would have to be complied with by the petitioner. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the respondents would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India and Others v. Tara Chand, reported in (2020) 18 SCC 452, and submit that the schemes and benefits must be implemented in accordance with the applicable rules and that no exception can be made in favour of any individual. The learned counsel would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. Roadways Retired Officials & Officers Association v. State of U.P., reported in (2024) 9 SCC 331, wherein the general principles governing pension were discussed and it was held that pension is not a bounty. He would further submit that, since the petitioner has not completed 20 years of qualifying service, she is not eligible for pension. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. The main contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has not completed 20 years of qualifying service by only six days. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pritam Singh Bedi's case (cited supra). For ready reference, this Court deems it appropriate to extract paragraphs 22 to 24 of the said judgment as follows:-

“22. The respondents completed more than 10 years of service in the Bank on the date of retirement; therefore, they fulfil the requirement of qualifying service as per Regulation 14.

23. It has not been disputed by the appellant Bank that the respondents in all the appeals have completed much more than 19 years 6 months of service in the Bank. For example, Respondent 1, Prakash Chand in CA No. 173 of 2010 had joined the Bank on 4-5-1981 and was relieved on 31-3-2001. Thus, he had completed 19 years, 10 months and 28 days of qualifying service on the date of relieving from service.

24. Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 provides that if broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as one year. Therefore, all the respondent-writ petitioners having completed more than 19 years and 6 months of service in the Bank, they are to be treated to have completed 20 years of service. The aforesaid question was neither raised nor decided in Bank of Baroda [Bank of Baroda v. Ganpat Singh Deora, (2009) 3 SCC 217 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 622] or Bank of India [Bank of India v. K. Mohandas, (2009) 5 SCC 313 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 524 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 32].”

6. In view of the aforesaid ratio, if the broken period of service exceeds six months, it shall be treated as one year. In the case in hand, the petitioner was short of completing 20 years of qualifying service by only six days. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner satisfies the eligibility criteria to opt for special voluntary retirement under the General Insurance Officers' Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004.

7. Though the learned counsel for the respondents would contend, relying upon the judgment in Tara Chand's case (cited supra), that no special privilege can be extended to an individual and that the rules must be strictly adhered to, this Court is of the view that, even while adhering to the rules stricto sensu, and by applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pritam Singh Bedi's case (cited supra), the petitioner would fall within the category of employees having the minimum qualifying service of 20 years.

8. In such circumstances, the petitioner would be entitled to opt for special voluntary retirement in accordance with the Administrative Instructions for Implementation of the Provisions of the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Amendment Scheme, 2019, subject to the applicable terms and conditions. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the rejection of the petitioner's claim for pension by the respondents, vide the impugned order dated 31.07.2019, is liable to be interfered with.

9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondents would further submit that, since the impugned order was passed in the year 2019, there is a delay in filing the present Writ Petition. However, having regard to the factual circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioner was appointed under the disability quota and retired from service on account of her physical condition, this Court does not find any reason to deny the relief sought for on the ground of delay.

10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated 31.07.2019 is set aside. The first respondent is directed to sanction pension to the petitioner under the special voluntary retirement scheme, subject to the terms and conditions and options stipulated under Clause 5.1 of the Administrative Instructions for Implementation of the Provisions of the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Amendment Scheme, 2019. The first respondent is further directed to complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KV

To

1. The Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Officer No. IV, 169, Anna Salai, 2nd Floor, Opp. to Spensers Plaza, Chennai - 600 002.

2. National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by Chairman cum Managing Director, HO. No.3, Middleton Street, Kolkata -700 071.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV WP No. 29403 of 2023 15-10-2026