Service matter - whether a voluntary retired person under special scheme entitled for pension benefits as per scheme as it was 20 years of service for granting pension under pension scheme - Retirement means includes voluntary retirement -as the per scheme a special voluntary retired person is entitled for pension benefits also along with other benefits and as such Voluntary retirement after 20 years mentioned in para 30 of General insurance pension scheme 1995 not applies in strict sense as it contains special provision to that effect - Apex court held affirmatively and confirmed the orders of high court and dismissed the civil appeal =
whether the respondents who opted for voluntary retirement from the service
of the appellant-companies are entitled to claim pension under the General
Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme 1995.
The High Court having answered
the question in the affirmative, the appellant-Insurance Companies have
appealed to assail that view.
“Eligibility
1) All permanent full time employees will be eligible to seek
special voluntary retirement under this Scheme provided
they have attained the age of 40 years and completed 10
years of qualifying services as on the date of
notification.
2) An employee who is under suspension or against whom
disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated shall
not be eligible to opt for the scheme;
Provided that the case of an employee who is under
suspension or against whom disciplinary proceeding is
pending or contemplated made be considered by the Board of
the Company concerned having regard to the facts and
circumstances of each case and the decision taken by the
Board shall be final.”
5. In para 5 of the scheme those seeking voluntary retirement were held
entitled to ex-gratia amount to be determined according to the said
provision. In Para 6 of the scheme were stipulated other benefits to which
the employees opting for voluntary retirement under the scheme would be
entitled. It reads as under:
“6. Other benefits.-
1) An employee opting for the scheme shall also be eligible
for the following benefits in addition to the ex-gratia
amount mentioned in para 5 namely:-
a) Provident Fund,
b) Gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of
1972) or gratuity payable under the Rationalisation
Scheme, as the case may be;
c) Pension (including commuted value of pension) as per
General Insurance (Employee’s) Pension Scheme 1995,
if eligible. However, the additional 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.
It was contended on behalf of the appellant-companies that in terms
of para 6 of SVRS of 2004 (supra) pension will be admissible to those
seeking voluntary retirement only if they were eligible for the same under
the Pension Scheme 1995.
Para 30 of the Pension Scheme 1995 in turn made
only such employees eligible for pension who had completed twenty years of
qualifying service.
Inasmuch as the respondents had not admittedly
completed twenty years of qualifying service on the date of their voluntary
retirement, they were not eligible for pension under the Pension Scheme
1995.=
That is because what is
claimed by the employees- respondents before us is not superannuation
pension nor is it pension on voluntary retirement within the meaning of
para 30 (supra).
As a matter of fact, para 6 (1)(c) of the SVRS of 2004
specifically provides that the notional benefit of additional five years to
be added to the service of the retiring employee as stipulated in para 30
of the pension scheme shall not be admissible for purposes of determining
the quantum of pension and commutation of pension.
It follows that the
SVRS of 2004 did not for the purposes of grant of pension adopt the scheme underlying para 30 of the Pension Scheme 1995.
Such being the case, the question is
whether the provisions of para 6 of the SVRS of 2004 read with
para 14 of the Pension Scheme 1995 which stipulates only ten years qualifying service for an employee who retires from service to entitle him to claim pension would entitle those retiring pursuant to the SVRS of 2004 also to claim pension. Our answer is in the affirmative.
If paras 29 and
30 do not govern the entitlement 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.
The context in which the question whether pension is admissible to
an employee who has opted for voluntary retirement under the 2004 scheme
assumes importance as Para 2 of the scheme starts with the words “In this
scheme, unless the context otherwise requires”. There is nothing in the
context of 1995 Scheme 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.
17. In the result these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed but in the
circumstances without any order as to costs.
2014 (JANUARY - VOL - 1) JUDIS.NIC.IN/S.C./FILE NAME =41144
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 256 OF 2014
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.9953 of 2008)
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. …Appellants
Versus
Kirpal Singh …Respondent
With
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 257 OF 2014
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.10548 of 2008)
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. …Appellants
Versus
Shamsher Singh Puri …Respondent
And
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 258 OF 2014
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.10756 of 2008)
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. …Appellants
Versus
Davinder Singh …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The short question that falls for determination in these appeals is
whether the respondents who opted for voluntary retirement from the service
of the appellant-companies are entitled to claim pension under the General
Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme 1995.
The High Court having answered
the question in the affirmative, the appellant-Insurance Companies have
appealed to assail that view.
3. The controversy arises in the following backdrop:
4. In exercise of its powers under
Section 17A of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, the Central Government made what is described as
General Insurance Employee’s Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “SVRS of 2004”).
Para 3 of the
scheme stipulating the eligibility conditions for employees who could opt
for voluntary retirement from the services of the insurance company is as
under:
“Eligibility
1) All permanent full time employees will be eligible to seek
special voluntary retirement under this Scheme provided
they have attained the age of 40 years and completed 10
years of qualifying services as on the date of
notification.
2) An employee who is under suspension or against whom
disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated shall
not be eligible to opt for the scheme;
Provided that the case of an employee who is under
suspension or against whom disciplinary proceeding is
pending or contemplated made be considered by the Board of
the Company concerned having regard to the facts and
circumstances of each case and the decision taken by the
Board shall be final.”
5. In para 5 of the scheme those seeking voluntary retirement were held
entitled to ex-gratia amount to be determined according to the said
provision. In Para 6 of the scheme were stipulated other benefits to which
the employees opting for voluntary retirement under the scheme would be
entitled. It reads as under:
“6. Other benefits.-
1) An employee opting for the scheme shall also be eligible
for the following benefits in addition to the ex-gratia
amount mentioned in para 5 namely:-
a) Provident Fund,
b) Gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of
1972) or gratuity payable under the Rationalisation
Scheme, as the case may be;
c) Pension (including commuted value of pension) as per
General Insurance (Employee’s) Pension Scheme 1995,
if eligible. However, the additional 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 service in
the Corporation/Company from whose service they were seeking retirement.
Para 14 of the Pension Scheme 1995 reads as under:
“Qualifying Service: Subject to the other condition contained in
this scheme, an employee who has rendered a minimum ten years of
service in the Corporation or a Company, on the date of
retirement shall qualify for pension.”
7. A conjoint reading of para 6 of SVRS of 2004 and para 14 of the
Pension Scheme 1995, would leave no manner of doubt that any employee
retiring from the service of the company/corporation would qualify for
payment of pension if he/she has rendered a minimum of ten years of service
on the date of retirement.
The expression ‘retirement’ has been defined in
para 2 (t) of the Pension Scheme 1995 as under:
“2 Definition:- In this Scheme, unless the context otherwise
requires:-
xxx xxx xxx
(t) "retirement" means –
(i) the retirement in accordance with the provisions contained
in paragraph 12 of General Insurance (Rationalisation and
Revision of Pay Scales and Other Conditions of Service of
Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff) Scheme,1974
notified under the notification of Government of India, in
the Ministry of Finance(Department of Revenue and
Insurance) number S.O.326(E) dated the 27th May, 1974;
(ii) the retirement in accordance with the provisions contained
in paragraph 4 of the General Insurance (Termination,
Superannuation and Retirement of Officers and Development
Staff) Scheme, 1976notified under notification of
Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance (Department
of Economic Affairs) number S.O.627(E) dated 21st
September,1976;
(iii) voluntary retirement in accordance with the provisions
contained in paragraph 30 of this scheme;
8. It was contended on behalf of the appellant-companies that in terms
of para 6 of SVRS of 2004 (supra) pension will be admissible to those
seeking voluntary retirement only if they were eligible for the same under
the Pension Scheme 1995.
Para 30 of the Pension Scheme 1995 in turn made
only such employees eligible for pension who had completed twenty years of
qualifying service.
Inasmuch as the respondents had not admittedly
completed twenty years of qualifying service on the date of their voluntary
retirement, they were not eligible for pension under the Pension Scheme
1995.
9. On behalf of the respondents, it was argued that the respondents had
not sought 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 Scheme 1995 while voluntary retirement pension is
governed by para 30 which read as under:
“29. Superannuation Pension: Subject to the other condition
contained in this scheme, an employee who has rendered a minimum
ten years of service in the Corporation or a Company, on the
date of retirement shall qualify for pension.
30. Pension on voluntary retirement: (1) At any time after an
employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service, he
may, by giving notice of not less than ninety days, writing to
the appointing authority, retire from service.
xxx xxx xxx
(5) The qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily
under this paragraph shall be increased by a period not
exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total
qualifying service rendered by the employee shall not in any
case exceed thirty years and it does not take him beyond the
date of retirement.”
(6) The pension of an employee retiring under this paragraph
shall be based on the average emoluments as defined under clause
(d) of paragraph 2 of this scheme and the increase, not
exceeding five years in his qualifying service, shall not
entitle him to any notional fixation of pay for the purpose of
calculating his pension”
11. The SVRS of 2004 does not obviously rest the claim for payment of
pension on any one of the above two provisions.
That is because what is
claimed by the employees- respondents before us is not superannuation
pension nor is it pension on voluntary retirement within the meaning of
para 30 (supra).
As a matter of fact, para 6 (1)(c) of the SVRS of 2004
specifically provides that the notional benefit of additional five years to
be added to the service of the retiring employee as stipulated in para 30
of the pension scheme shall not be admissible for purposes of determining
the quantum of pension and commutation of pension.
It follows that the
SVRS of 2004 did not for the purposes of grant of pension adopt the scheme underlying para 30 of the Pension Scheme 1995.
Such being the case, the question is
whether the provisions of para 6 of the SVRS of 2004 read with
para 14 of the Pension Scheme 1995 which stipulates only ten years qualifying service for an employee who retires from service to entitle him to claim pension would entitle those retiring pursuant to the SVRS of 2004 also to claim pension. Our answer is in the affirmative.
If paras 29 and
30 do not govern the entitlement 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 them benefits like ex-gratia
payment and pension not otherwise admissible to the employees in the
ordinary course. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the expression
“Retirement” appearing in Para 14 of the Pension scheme 1995 should not
only apply to cases which fall under Para 30 of the said scheme but also to
a case falling under a Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2004. So
interpreted, those opting for voluntary retirement under the said SVRS of
2004 would also qualify for payment of pension as they had put in the
qualifying service of ten years stipulated under Para 14 of the Pension
Scheme 1995.
12. We are mindful of the fact that the word ‘means’ used in statutory
definitions generally implies that the definition is exhaustive. But that
general rule of interpretation is not without an exception. An equally
well-settled principle of interpretation is that the use of the word
‘means’ in a statutory definition notwithstanding the context in which the
expression is defined cannot be ignored in any forensic exercise meant to
discover the real purport of an expression. Lord Denning’s observations in
Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board v. Automobile Proprietary Ltd.
(1968) 1 W.L.R. 1526 are, in this regard, apposite when he said:
“It is true that 'the industry' is defined; but a definition is not
to be read in isolation. It must be read in the context of the
phrase which it defines, realising that the function of a
definition is to give precision and certainty to a word or phrase
which would otherwise be vague and uncertain-but not to contradict
it or supplant it altogether”
13. In The Vanguard Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. Madras v. Fraser &
Ross & Anr. AIR 1960 SC 971 one of the questions that fell for
determination before this Court was whether the definition of the word
“insurer” included a person intending to carry on a business or a person
who has ceased to carry on a business. It was contended that the definition
started with the words “insurer means” and, therefore, is exhaustive. This
Court repelling that contention held that 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 the word defined is said to mean a
certain thing, it is possible for 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 s.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 s.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 the word defined is said to
mean a certain thing, it is possible for 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 statues generally being with the qualifying words
similar to the words used in the present case, namely, unless
there is anything repugnant in the subject or context. therefore
in finding out the meaning to the word "insurer" in various
sections of the Act, the meaning to be ordinarily given to it is
that given in the definition clause. But this is not inflexible
and there may be sections in the Act where the meaning may have
to be departed from on account of the subject or context in
which the word has been used and that will be giving effect to
the opening sentence in the definition section, namely, unless
there is anything repugnant in the subject or context. In view
of this qualification, the court has not only to look at the
words but also to look at the context, the collocation and the
object of such words relating to such matter and interpret the
meaning intended to be conveyed by the use of the words under
the circumstances. Therefore, though ordinarily the word
"insurer" as used in the Act would mean a person or body
corporate actually carrying on the business of insurance it may
be that in certain sections the word may have a somewhat
different meaning.”
(emphasis supplied)
14. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Paul Enterprises
& Ors. v. Rajib Chatterjee and Co. & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 709 where this Court
once again reiterated that the interpretation clause should be given a
contextual meaning and that all statutory definitions must be read subject
to the qualification variously expressed in the interpretation clause,
which created them. In State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. B.E. Billimoria &
Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 336 also this Court restated the principle that meaning
of an expression must be determined in the context in which the same has
been used. Reference may also be made to K.V. Muthu v. Angamuthu Ammal
(1997) 2 SCC 53 where this Court made the following apposite observations:
“Apparently, it appears that the definition is conclusive as the
word "means" has been used to specify the members, namely,
spouse, son, daughter, grand-child or dependent parent, who
would constitute the family. Section 2 of the Act in which
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 not be applied”.
(emphasis supplied)
15. We may also gainfully refer to the decision of this Court in Reserve
Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance (1987) 1 SCC 424 where this Court
declared that the best interpretation is the one in which the Court relies
upon not only the test but also the context in which the provision has been
made. We can do no better than to extract the following passage from that
decision:
“Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They
are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is
the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be
ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which
makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute
is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this
knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then
section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word
by word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of its
enactment, with the glasses of the statutemaker, provided by
such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and
words may take colour and appear different than when the statute
is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With
these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover
what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is
meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the
entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be
construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that
every word has a place and everything is in its place.”
(emphasis supplied)
16. In the case at hand Para 2 of the Pension Scheme 1995 (extracted
earlier) defines the expressions appearing in the scheme. But what is
important is that such definitions are good only if the context also
supports the meaning assigned to the expressions defined by the definition
clause. The context in which the question whether pension is admissible to
an employee who has opted for voluntary retirement under the 2004 scheme
assumes importance as Para 2 of the scheme starts with the words “In this
scheme, unless the context otherwise requires”. There is nothing in the
context of 1995 Scheme 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.
17. In the result these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed but in the
circumstances without any order as to costs.
……………………….……….…..…J.
(T.S. THAKUR)
…………..…………………..…..…J.
(VIKRAMAJIT SEN)
New Delhi
January 10, 2014
whether the respondents who opted for voluntary retirement from the service
of the appellant-companies are entitled to claim pension under the General
Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme 1995.
The High Court having answered
the question in the affirmative, the appellant-Insurance Companies have
appealed to assail that view.
“Eligibility
1) All permanent full time employees will be eligible to seek
special voluntary retirement under this Scheme provided
they have attained the age of 40 years and completed 10
years of qualifying services as on the date of
notification.
2) An employee who is under suspension or against whom
disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated shall
not be eligible to opt for the scheme;
Provided that the case of an employee who is under
suspension or against whom disciplinary proceeding is
pending or contemplated made be considered by the Board of
the Company concerned having regard to the facts and
circumstances of each case and the decision taken by the
Board shall be final.”
5. In para 5 of the scheme those seeking voluntary retirement were held
entitled to ex-gratia amount to be determined according to the said
provision. In Para 6 of the scheme were stipulated other benefits to which
the employees opting for voluntary retirement under the scheme would be
entitled. It reads as under:
“6. Other benefits.-
1) An employee opting for the scheme shall also be eligible
for the following benefits in addition to the ex-gratia
amount mentioned in para 5 namely:-
a) Provident Fund,
b) Gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of
1972) or gratuity payable under the Rationalisation
Scheme, as the case may be;
c) Pension (including commuted value of pension) as per
General Insurance (Employee’s) Pension Scheme 1995,
if eligible. However, the additional 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.
It was contended on behalf of the appellant-companies that in terms
of para 6 of SVRS of 2004 (supra) pension will be admissible to those
seeking voluntary retirement only if they were eligible for the same under
the Pension Scheme 1995.
Para 30 of the Pension Scheme 1995 in turn made
only such employees eligible for pension who had completed twenty years of
qualifying service.
Inasmuch as the respondents had not admittedly
completed twenty years of qualifying service on the date of their voluntary
retirement, they were not eligible for pension under the Pension Scheme
1995.=
The SVRS of 2004 does not obviously rest the claim for payment of
pension on any one of the above two provisions. That is because what is
claimed by the employees- respondents before us is not superannuation
pension nor is it pension on voluntary retirement within the meaning of
para 30 (supra).
As a matter of fact, para 6 (1)(c) of the SVRS of 2004
specifically provides that the notional benefit of additional five years to
be added to the service of the retiring employee as stipulated in para 30
of the pension scheme shall not be admissible for purposes of determining
the quantum of pension and commutation of pension.
It follows that the
SVRS of 2004 did not for the purposes of grant of pension adopt the scheme underlying para 30 of the Pension Scheme 1995.
Such being the case, the question is
whether the provisions of para 6 of the SVRS of 2004 read with
para 14 of the Pension Scheme 1995 which stipulates only ten years qualifying service for an employee who retires from service to entitle him to claim pension would entitle those retiring pursuant to the SVRS of 2004 also to claim pension. Our answer is in the affirmative.
If paras 29 and
30 do not govern the entitlement 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.
The context in which the question whether pension is admissible to
an employee who has opted for voluntary retirement under the 2004 scheme
assumes importance as Para 2 of the scheme starts with the words “In this
scheme, unless the context otherwise requires”. There is nothing in the
context of 1995 Scheme 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.
17. In the result these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed but in the
circumstances without any order as to costs.
2014 (JANUARY - VOL - 1) JUDIS.NIC.IN/S.C./FILE NAME =41144
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 256 OF 2014
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.9953 of 2008)
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. …Appellants
Versus
Kirpal Singh …Respondent
With
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 257 OF 2014
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.10548 of 2008)
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. …Appellants
Versus
Shamsher Singh Puri …Respondent
And
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 258 OF 2014
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.10756 of 2008)
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. …Appellants
Versus
Davinder Singh …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The short question that falls for determination in these appeals is
whether the respondents who opted for voluntary retirement from the service
of the appellant-companies are entitled to claim pension under the General
Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme 1995.
The High Court having answered
the question in the affirmative, the appellant-Insurance Companies have
appealed to assail that view.
3. The controversy arises in the following backdrop:
4. In exercise of its powers under
Section 17A of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, the Central Government made what is described as
General Insurance Employee’s Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “SVRS of 2004”).
Para 3 of the
scheme stipulating the eligibility conditions for employees who could opt
for voluntary retirement from the services of the insurance company is as
under:
“Eligibility
1) All permanent full time employees will be eligible to seek
special voluntary retirement under this Scheme provided
they have attained the age of 40 years and completed 10
years of qualifying services as on the date of
notification.
2) An employee who is under suspension or against whom
disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated shall
not be eligible to opt for the scheme;
Provided that the case of an employee who is under
suspension or against whom disciplinary proceeding is
pending or contemplated made be considered by the Board of
the Company concerned having regard to the facts and
circumstances of each case and the decision taken by the
Board shall be final.”
5. In para 5 of the scheme those seeking voluntary retirement were held
entitled to ex-gratia amount to be determined according to the said
provision. In Para 6 of the scheme were stipulated other benefits to which
the employees opting for voluntary retirement under the scheme would be
entitled. It reads as under:
“6. Other benefits.-
1) An employee opting for the scheme shall also be eligible
for the following benefits in addition to the ex-gratia
amount mentioned in para 5 namely:-
a) Provident Fund,
b) Gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of
1972) or gratuity payable under the Rationalisation
Scheme, as the case may be;
c) Pension (including commuted value of pension) as per
General Insurance (Employee’s) Pension Scheme 1995,
if eligible. However, the additional 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 service in
the Corporation/Company from whose service they were seeking retirement.
Para 14 of the Pension Scheme 1995 reads as under:
“Qualifying Service: Subject to the other condition contained in
this scheme, an employee who has rendered a minimum ten years of
service in the Corporation or a Company, on the date of
retirement shall qualify for pension.”
7. A conjoint reading of para 6 of SVRS of 2004 and para 14 of the
Pension Scheme 1995, would leave no manner of doubt that any employee
retiring from the service of the company/corporation would qualify for
payment of pension if he/she has rendered a minimum of ten years of service
on the date of retirement.
The expression ‘retirement’ has been defined in
para 2 (t) of the Pension Scheme 1995 as under:
“2 Definition:- In this Scheme, unless the context otherwise
requires:-
xxx xxx xxx
(t) "retirement" means –
(i) the retirement in accordance with the provisions contained
in paragraph 12 of General Insurance (Rationalisation and
Revision of Pay Scales and Other Conditions of Service of
Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff) Scheme,1974
notified under the notification of Government of India, in
the Ministry of Finance(Department of Revenue and
Insurance) number S.O.326(E) dated the 27th May, 1974;
(ii) the retirement in accordance with the provisions contained
in paragraph 4 of the General Insurance (Termination,
Superannuation and Retirement of Officers and Development
Staff) Scheme, 1976notified under notification of
Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance (Department
of Economic Affairs) number S.O.627(E) dated 21st
September,1976;
(iii) voluntary retirement in accordance with the provisions
contained in paragraph 30 of this scheme;
8. It was contended on behalf of the appellant-companies that in terms
of para 6 of SVRS of 2004 (supra) pension will be admissible to those
seeking voluntary retirement only if they were eligible for the same under
the Pension Scheme 1995.
Para 30 of the Pension Scheme 1995 in turn made
only such employees eligible for pension who had completed twenty years of
qualifying service.
Inasmuch as the respondents had not admittedly
completed twenty years of qualifying service on the date of their voluntary
retirement, they were not eligible for pension under the Pension Scheme
1995.
9. On behalf of the respondents, it was argued that the respondents had
not sought 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 Scheme 1995 while voluntary retirement pension is
governed by para 30 which read as under:
“29. Superannuation Pension: Subject to the other condition
contained in this scheme, an employee who has rendered a minimum
ten years of service in the Corporation or a Company, on the
date of retirement shall qualify for pension.
30. Pension on voluntary retirement: (1) At any time after an
employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service, he
may, by giving notice of not less than ninety days, writing to
the appointing authority, retire from service.
xxx xxx xxx
(5) The qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily
under this paragraph shall be increased by a period not
exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total
qualifying service rendered by the employee shall not in any
case exceed thirty years and it does not take him beyond the
date of retirement.”
(6) The pension of an employee retiring under this paragraph
shall be based on the average emoluments as defined under clause
(d) of paragraph 2 of this scheme and the increase, not
exceeding five years in his qualifying service, shall not
entitle him to any notional fixation of pay for the purpose of
calculating his pension”
11. The SVRS of 2004 does not obviously rest the claim for payment of
pension on any one of the above two provisions.
That is because what is
claimed by the employees- respondents before us is not superannuation
pension nor is it pension on voluntary retirement within the meaning of
para 30 (supra).
As a matter of fact, para 6 (1)(c) of the SVRS of 2004
specifically provides that the notional benefit of additional five years to
be added to the service of the retiring employee as stipulated in para 30
of the pension scheme shall not be admissible for purposes of determining
the quantum of pension and commutation of pension.
It follows that the
SVRS of 2004 did not for the purposes of grant of pension adopt the scheme underlying para 30 of the Pension Scheme 1995.
Such being the case, the question is
whether the provisions of para 6 of the SVRS of 2004 read with
para 14 of the Pension Scheme 1995 which stipulates only ten years qualifying service for an employee who retires from service to entitle him to claim pension would entitle those retiring pursuant to the SVRS of 2004 also to claim pension. Our answer is in the affirmative.
If paras 29 and
30 do not govern the entitlement 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 them benefits like ex-gratia
payment and pension not otherwise admissible to the employees in the
ordinary course. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the expression
“Retirement” appearing in Para 14 of the Pension scheme 1995 should not
only apply to cases which fall under Para 30 of the said scheme but also to
a case falling under a Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2004. So
interpreted, those opting for voluntary retirement under the said SVRS of
2004 would also qualify for payment of pension as they had put in the
qualifying service of ten years stipulated under Para 14 of the Pension
Scheme 1995.
12. We are mindful of the fact that the word ‘means’ used in statutory
definitions generally implies that the definition is exhaustive. But that
general rule of interpretation is not without an exception. An equally
well-settled principle of interpretation is that the use of the word
‘means’ in a statutory definition notwithstanding the context in which the
expression is defined cannot be ignored in any forensic exercise meant to
discover the real purport of an expression. Lord Denning’s observations in
Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board v. Automobile Proprietary Ltd.
(1968) 1 W.L.R. 1526 are, in this regard, apposite when he said:
“It is true that 'the industry' is defined; but a definition is not
to be read in isolation. It must be read in the context of the
phrase which it defines, realising that the function of a
definition is to give precision and certainty to a word or phrase
which would otherwise be vague and uncertain-but not to contradict
it or supplant it altogether”
13. In The Vanguard Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. Madras v. Fraser &
Ross & Anr. AIR 1960 SC 971 one of the questions that fell for
determination before this Court was whether the definition of the word
“insurer” included a person intending to carry on a business or a person
who has ceased to carry on a business. It was contended that the definition
started with the words “insurer means” and, therefore, is exhaustive. This
Court repelling that contention held that 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 the word defined is said to mean a
certain thing, it is possible for 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 s.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 s.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 the word defined is said to
mean a certain thing, it is possible for 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 statues generally being with the qualifying words
similar to the words used in the present case, namely, unless
there is anything repugnant in the subject or context. therefore
in finding out the meaning to the word "insurer" in various
sections of the Act, the meaning to be ordinarily given to it is
that given in the definition clause. But this is not inflexible
and there may be sections in the Act where the meaning may have
to be departed from on account of the subject or context in
which the word has been used and that will be giving effect to
the opening sentence in the definition section, namely, unless
there is anything repugnant in the subject or context. In view
of this qualification, the court has not only to look at the
words but also to look at the context, the collocation and the
object of such words relating to such matter and interpret the
meaning intended to be conveyed by the use of the words under
the circumstances. Therefore, though ordinarily the word
"insurer" as used in the Act would mean a person or body
corporate actually carrying on the business of insurance it may
be that in certain sections the word may have a somewhat
different meaning.”
(emphasis supplied)
14. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Paul Enterprises
& Ors. v. Rajib Chatterjee and Co. & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 709 where this Court
once again reiterated that the interpretation clause should be given a
contextual meaning and that all statutory definitions must be read subject
to the qualification variously expressed in the interpretation clause,
which created them. In State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. B.E. Billimoria &
Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 336 also this Court restated the principle that meaning
of an expression must be determined in the context in which the same has
been used. Reference may also be made to K.V. Muthu v. Angamuthu Ammal
(1997) 2 SCC 53 where this Court made the following apposite observations:
“Apparently, it appears that the definition is conclusive as the
word "means" has been used to specify the members, namely,
spouse, son, daughter, grand-child or dependent parent, who
would constitute the family. Section 2 of the Act in which
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 not be applied”.
(emphasis supplied)
15. We may also gainfully refer to the decision of this Court in Reserve
Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance (1987) 1 SCC 424 where this Court
declared that the best interpretation is the one in which the Court relies
upon not only the test but also the context in which the provision has been
made. We can do no better than to extract the following passage from that
decision:
“Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They
are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is
the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be
ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which
makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute
is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this
knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then
section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word
by word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of its
enactment, with the glasses of the statutemaker, provided by
such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and
words may take colour and appear different than when the statute
is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With
these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover
what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is
meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the
entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be
construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that
every word has a place and everything is in its place.”
(emphasis supplied)
16. In the case at hand Para 2 of the Pension Scheme 1995 (extracted
earlier) defines the expressions appearing in the scheme. But what is
important is that such definitions are good only if the context also
supports the meaning assigned to the expressions defined by the definition
clause. The context in which the question whether pension is admissible to
an employee who has opted for voluntary retirement under the 2004 scheme
assumes importance as Para 2 of the scheme starts with the words “In this
scheme, unless the context otherwise requires”. There is nothing in the
context of 1995 Scheme 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.
17. In the result these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed but in the
circumstances without any order as to costs.
……………………….……….…..…J.
(T.S. THAKUR)
…………..…………………..…..…J.
(VIKRAMAJIT SEN)
New Delhi
January 10, 2014
