WP/14010/2023 of S.Pitchamuthu Vs The Union of India on 21 August 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present writ of certiorarified mandamus has been instituted challenging the proviso clause provided in Sub-Paragraph 11 of Paragraph 3 of the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Amendment Scheme, 2019, notified vide Gazette Notification No.1627(E) dated 23.04.2019.

2. The brief facts are that the writ petitioner served as ‘Deputy Manager’ in the National Insurance Company Limited and retired from service on 30.06.2015 on attaining his age of superannuation. All the terminal benefits due to him was settled as applicable under the Rules. The Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, issued a notification on 23.04.2019 in exercise of powers conferred by Section 17A of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, and introduced a scheme, namely, General Insurance (Employees') Pension Amendment Scheme, 2019.

( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 02:37:53 pm )

WP No. 14010 of 2023

3. Clause 1(2) of the Scheme states that "This shall come into force on the date of the publication in the Official Gazette." It was published on 23.04.2019. Thus, the amended Scheme of the year 2019 was implemented with effect from 23.04.2019.

4. As per the existing pension scheme of the year 1995, the benefits were settled in favour of the writ petitioner and he received the same. As far as the writ petitioner is concerned, on the date of his retirement, the 1995 Pension Scheme was in force. As per the said pension scheme, the terminal benefits were settled in his favour.

5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner had not opted for pension, and therefore, the Provident Fund and other benefits due to him was settled. On introduction of General Insurance (Employees') Pension (Amendment) Scheme 2019 facility of option has been provided to the employee to opt for pension. The writ petitioner opted to receive pension under the 2019 Amendment Scheme. Conditions are stipulated in respect of the employees who opted for the 2019 Scheme. In compliance with the conditions, he repaid the employer's contribution of the Provident Fund for receiving pension.

( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 02:37:53 pm )

WP No. 14010 of 2023

6. Pertinently, the amended scheme came into force in the year 2019, and after receiving pension under the amendment scheme, the present writ petition came to be filed in the year 2023.

7. Admittedly, the writ petitioner opted the scheme, received the pension and in compliance with the terms of the amendment scheme of the year 2019, and thereafter filed the writ petition.

8. Pension, though given a status of right under a statute, rules, or a scheme still exists within the contours of the scheme framed by the employer. Granting pension in respect of the employees by providing an option facility after their retirement itself is an additional benefit on the top of the benefits conferred under the erstwhile scheme of the year 1995 as amended in the year 1998. Therefore, any further additional benefits over and above the amendment scheme of the year 2019 cannot be granted by the Court.

9. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that some similarly placed persons have been extended monetary benefits with retrospective effect. However, the petitioner has not established any such allegation nor produced any material evidence to show that the department has discriminated the petitioner in the matter of extending monetary benefits. In the absence of any such material, this Court is not in a position to consider the said ground.

( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 02:37:53 pm )

WP No. 14010 of 2023

10. Fixing a cut-off date is recognized under law for the implementation of financial benefits by the Government/employer. In the present case, the proviso clause indicates that in the event of opting for a pension under the 2019 scheme, the employee has to refund the employer's contribution of provident fund enabling them to sanction pension. This being the precondition contemplated under the 2019 scheme, and the petitioner having complied with the precondition and was receiving the pension for more than four years, cannot turn around and file a writ petition challenging the proviso clause for the purpose of getting further monetary benefits.

11. In the event of considering such claims by reversing the cut-off date, the same would result in opening a Pandora's box through which many other similarly placed employees who retired prior to 2019 would also claim all such benefits with retrospective effect, causing a huge financial burden to the insurance company.

12. Therefore, Clause 3(11) proviso restricting the date of implementation cannot be interfered with, since the amendment scheme is only an additional benefit provided in respect of the employees who had received the terminal benefits based on the 1995 scheme as amended in the year 1998. Since it is the extended benefit is granted to the retired employees who had not opted for the pension scheme, now they cannot seek any further

( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 02:37:53 pm )

WP No. 14010 of 2023

benefit over and above the benefits conferred under the amendment scheme of the year 2019.

13. Thus, the very challenge made against the provision deserves no merit. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 21-08-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order skr

( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 02:37:53 pm )

WP No. 14010 of 2023

To

1. The Union of India Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Department of Financial services, Ministry of finance, Jeevan deep building, 3rd floor, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001

2. The chairman-cum-Managing director National insurance company limited, 3, Middleton street, Prafulla chandra sen sarani, Kolkatta, West Bengal-700071

( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 02:37:53 pm )

WP No. 14010 of 2023

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. skr WP No. 14010 of 2023 21-08-2026

( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 02:37:53 pm )