- (1.) THE petitioner availed voluntary retirement from services of the respondent United India Insurance Company Limited under General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Scheme of 1976") as amended under General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) Amendment Scheme, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Scheme of 2003"). As per the scheme aforesaid he was entitled for gratuity pension (including commutation of pension), leave encashment in addition to exgratia amount.
(2.) SUFFICE to mention here that in regular course provision for voluntary retirement from service of the respondent insurance company is prescribed under the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Scheme of 1995"). As per sub-clause (5) of clause 30 of the Scheme of 1995 the qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily under clause 30 of the Scheme of 1995 shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such employee shall not in any case exceed 33 years and it does not take him beyond the date of retirement. The respondent insurance company did not allow the benefit referred in sub-clause (5) of clause 30 referred above to the petitioner as he availed voluntary retirement under the Scheme of 1976 read with the amended Scheme of 2003. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the benefits given under the Scheme of 1976 read with the amended Scheme of 2003 are in addition to whatever rights and liabilities prescribed under the Pension Scheme of 1995, as such the respondents should have determined pension of the petitioner by extending his qualifying service by five years, as per sub-clause (5) of clause 30 of the Scheme concerned.
(3.) WHILE opposing the claim made by the petitioner the argument advanced by counsel for the respondents is that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at threshold being belated and also on the count of non- joinder of necessary parties.;