Summary
Answering a larger-Bench reference, the Supreme Court distinguished resignation from voluntary retirement under the pension schemes before it. Employees who had resigned before notification could not claim inclusion merely because the schemes later covered an earlier retirement period. Their terms expressly excluded resignation and prescribed service forfeiture. LIC’s appeal succeeded; the United India Insurance and Andhra Bank employees’ appeals failed. Interim amounts already paid to the LIC employee were protected against recovery.
Issues
- Whether resignation could be treated as voluntary retirement to obtain benefits under subsequently notified pension schemes.
- Whether retrospective or past-period scheme coverage included the employees who had resigned.
Provisions considered
- Rules 2(s) and 23, Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995The defined retirement categories did not include resignation, which expressly forfeited past service for pension eligibility. (¶ 12–19)
- Clause 22, General Insurance (Employees’) Pension Scheme, 1995The express resignation-forfeiture rule applied to the insurance employee’s claim; relabelling resignation as premature retirement did not avoid it. (¶ 30–35)
Held
- The LIC employee consciously resigned under the then-applicable rules, which had no voluntary-retirement provision. Later pension rules covered specified retirees, not resigning employees; their distinct terms could not be treated as interchangeable. (¶¶ 17–19, 21–25)
- Authorities must be read in their factual and statutory context. The retrenchment decision in JK Cotton did not equate resignation with voluntary retirement for every pension scheme, while the broad gratuity definition in Sudhir Chandra Sarkar belonged to its particular rules. (¶¶ 20–24, 32–34)
- Beneficial interpretation could not expand an unambiguous contributory scheme beyond its intended categories and conditions. (¶ 25)
- The United India employee’s self-description as prematurely retired did not alter resignation; the relevant eligibility and option conditions were not met. A later precedent also did not revive his stale claim. (¶ 27–37)
- The Andhra Bank regulations covered specified earlier retirees but did not extend to those who had resigned. Their claims likewise failed under the distinction and disqualification provisions. (¶ 39–43)
- LIC’s appeal was allowed and the other employees’ appeals dismissed, but no refund could be claimed of amounts paid to the LIC employee under the specified interim order. (¶ 44–46)
Result
LIC appeal allowed and its employee’s writ petition dismissed. United India Insurance and Andhra Bank employees’ appeals dismissed; reference answered accordingly. Parties to bear own costs. LIC interim payments protected from recovery.