RAMDAYAL BALAI Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner joined services in the respondent Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (for short, 'the company') w.e.f. 14/11/1990, on being appointed against the post of Assistant (Clerk). The petitioner while holding the post of Assistant (Clerk) in the Divisional office, Bhilwara of respondent-company submitted two one month's notices dtd. 13/4/2009 (Annex. 1 and Annex. R/3) praying to relieve him from services w.e.f. 13/5/2009. The authorities of the respondent-organization directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.4,35,000.00 towards outstanding amount of housing loan, so as to facilitate acceptance of notice dtd. 13/4/2009. The amount of outstanding house loan was deposited by the petitioner on 17/6/2009. Consequently, notice seeking resignation (Annex. R/3) was accepted by the competent authority and the petitioner was relieved from services w.e.f. 22/6/2009 (Annex. 5). The gratuity and provident fund was released in favour of the petitioner, however, the pension and commutation of pension were not released. The petitioner being aggrieved by the denial of pension, submitted numerous representations to the respondents. The respondent No. 2 vide letter dtd. 4/3/2013 (Annex. 14) informed the petitioner that since he had not completed twenty years of qualifying service with the respondent-company, claim for pension is not admissible as per General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995 (Pension Scheme, 1995)

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner vide notice dtd. 13/4/2009 (Annex. 1), requested respondent-company to accept the notice seeking voluntary retirement from services and accord all retiral benefits. The said application was forwarded by respondent No. 3 to the Regional Office, Jaipur. Learned counsel submitted that respondent No. 3 vide letter dtd. 13/5/2009 (Annex. 2) informed the petitioner that application seeking voluntary retirement had been accepted by the Regional Office, Jaipur subject to clearing the house loan amount of Rs.4,75,000.00, owed by the petitioner to the LIC Housing Finance Limited. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent No. 2 vide communication dtd. 4/3/2013, in reply to the petitioner's letter dtd. 15/2/2013, informed that he had sought voluntary retirement from services w.e.f. 13/5/2009, without completing twenty years of service in the respondent-company, therefore, as per Chapter-5, para-30 of Pension Scheme of 1995), the pension on voluntary retirement cannot be granted in his favour. It was urged that chapter-4, para-14 of the Pension Scheme, 1995 clearly indicates that an employee who has rendered a minimum ten years of service in the respondent-company on the date of retirement shall qualify for pension. Learned counsel thus urged that the impugned letter dtd. 4/3/2013 (Annex. 14) denying pension and commutation of pension to the petitioner is not in conformity with the provisions contained in Pension Scheme, 1995, therefore, the same deserves to be declared illegal and arbitrary by this Court. In support of aforesaid contentions reliance was placed on the following judgments:-