Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1874 (RAJ)

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. R. P. Garg

2015-11-05

AJAY RASTOGI, J.K.RANKA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - Instant intra court appeal has been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurance Company) assailing the judgment dated 9.2.2009 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in SBCWP-3679/2004. 2. The moot question for our consideration involved in the instant appeal is whether the respondent-employee of the appellant insurance company is eligible to claim pensionary benefits under the General Insurance Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 (Pension Scheme 1995). 3. The undisputed facts which culled out from the record are that the respondent employee initially joined service in the insurance company on 2.9.1972 and served in various capacity and took voluntary retirement from service on 27.2.2004 after seeking due permission of the competent authority and the respondent employee has not received the retiral dues of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) so far. 4. That the Pension Scheme 1995 came to be notified on 28.6.1995 by the Central Govt, in exercise of power conferred u/S. Section 17-A of the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972 (Act, 1972), the respondent employee has exercised its option in writing within the stipulated period to become a member of the Pension Scheme 1995 on 19.10.1995 and contributory provident fund account was duly adjusted by the company and he was treated to be pension optee in the PF statements pertaining to the years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 and that also indicated that after he has been shown a pension optee, no deductions or contribution of the insurance company were credited to the PF account of the respondent employee and the insurance company started deducting from employer's contribution from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1998 & sent to the Pension Department. 5. It may be further noticed that initially the option was to be exercised by the employee who were in service under Chapter-II para 3 within one hundred twenty days from the notified date to become member of the Fund and if any amount is outstanding has to be refunded within sixty days thereafter under sub-paragraph (d) of para 3(3) of the Scheme 1995. In the case of the respondent employee all the formalities were complied with and after pension scheme being opted the company also started deduction under the Pension Scheme 1995. 6. In the case of the respondent employee all the formalities were complied with and after pension scheme being opted the company also started deduction under the Pension Scheme 1995. 6. It may be relevant to note herein that after the first phase was over, fresh options were invited from the employees in the month of April 1997 under the General Insurance (Employees Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 1997) from the employees who could not submit their option earlier under the Pension Scheme of 1995 and there was no occasion for the respondent employee to submit option at that stage as he has been considered to be the pension optee under the Pension Scheme 1995 and included in the list of pension optees and the Insurance Company continuously started deducting contribution and it was sent to the Pension Department till December 1998. 7. At this stage, a letter dated 4.11.1999 was sent by the PF Department, Mumbai to the Pension Department directing that since the respondent employee had not refunded Insurance Company's contribution of Non-Refundable Withdrawal before 26.12.1995, his name accordingly stands deleted from the list of pension optees, which is as per decision of the Pension Department, Head Office, New Delhi vide letter dated 18.1.1996 and thereafter the respondent employee had correspondence with the department and also sent legal notice and despite he averred that it was not a non refundable withdrawal & still if the company is of the view that it was non refundable withdrawal and has to be refunded he is ready to adjust/deposit non refundable withdrawal of Rs. 36,323.44 as on 31.3.1995 with interest, if any, however, permission was not granted and he was asked to accept the provident fund contribution which he did not accept and protested by filing writ petition. 8. The Ld. Single Judge after hearing the parties, allowed the writ petition under order impugned dated 9.2.2009 which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant intra court appeal at the instance of the Insurance Company. 9. 8. The Ld. Single Judge after hearing the parties, allowed the writ petition under order impugned dated 9.2.2009 which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant intra court appeal at the instance of the Insurance Company. 9. Main thrust of submissions of counsel for the appellant Insurance Company is that the respondent employee has failed to refund the non refundable withdrawal made from the insurance company's contribution to the Provident Fund account and interest accrued thereon as provided under para 3(3) (d) which is one of the essential condition of the Pension Scheme 1995 to make the incumbent eligible & to become a member of Pension Scheme which in the instant case indisputable has not been complied with by the respondent employee and placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2011(11) SCC 702 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Mangal Singh & Ors. which has been further followed in 2013(2) WLC (SC) Civil 136 : 2013 (11) SCC 603 RSRTC v. Madhu Giri (dead) through LRs & Anr . 10. Counsel for appellant further submits that it is true that for the years 1995-96] 1996-97 and 1997-98, the respondent employee was shown in the fist of pension optees and in the meantime, the General Insurance (Employees) Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 1997 (Amendment Scheme 1997) was introduced and fresh options were called from the employees of the insurance company who earlier could not submit their option but if the respondent employee failed to refund the non refundable withdrawal from the company's contributory provident fund account along with interest as provided in para 3(3)(d) of the Pension Scheme 1995 and he could not be considered to be a pension optee and his name has rightly been deleted from the list of pension optees and non acceptance of the provident fund contribution was his own choice but at least the insurance company cannot be saddled for the same. 11. 11. Counsel for the appellant further submits that last date for depositing the non refundable company's contribution under the Pension Scheme 1995 was 22.12.1995 and defence of the respondent employee was that it was not to be refunded, the alleged non refundable withdrawal amount as contemplated under para 3(3)(d) of the Pension Scheme 1995 and the fact is that he failed to comply with the mandatory requirement under the Pension Scheme' 1995 and on such erroneous presumption that the respondent employee at one stage was included in the list of pension optee and indicated in the PF statements pertaining to the years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 no right could said to be conferred and his name was rightly deleted from the list of pension optees by the insurance company after informing him vide communication dated 4.11.1999. However, the respondent employee approached this Court after he took voluntary retirement from service and submits that in the light of judgment of Apex Court referred to supra he is not entitled for any relief to claim to be a member of the pension optees under the Pension Scheme 1995 and as regards provident fund contribution is concerned, the same is lying with the insurance company and he is at liberty to accept the same with whatever interest computed thereon after due compliance of provisions of law. 12. Counsel for respondent on the other hand while supporting the order of the Id. Single Judge submits that the amount which was taken as housing loan was not a non refundable withdrawal from the contributory provident fund account as contemplated in para 3(3)(d) of the Scheme of 1995 but still without going into the controversy he tendered that the amount may be deposited or adjusted from his account while treating him to be a pension optee and his pension may be released from the date of his retirement from service under the Pension Scheme 1995 and further submits that major part of the provident fund contribution which is almost Rs. 2,50,000/- lying in his account as on 31.3.1995 was transferred by the PF department Mumbai to the Pension Fund and for non refundable withdrawal of Rs. 2,50,000/- lying in his account as on 31.3.1995 was transferred by the PF department Mumbai to the Pension Fund and for non refundable withdrawal of Rs. 36323.44 he made correspondence that his is not under obligation to deposit and his contention was accepted and as he was treated to be a pension optee as being indicated from the PF statements pertaining to the years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 and insurance company started deducting contribution towards pension fund and was regularly sent to the pension department continuously from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1998 and after the respondent employee was treated a pension optee continuously for three years there was no occasion for him to exercise his fresh option which was invited by the company under the Amendment Scheme 1997 and his name was wrongly deleted from the list of pension optees vide order dated 4.11.1999 and in these facts & circumstances taking a technical plea of not depositing non refundable withdrawal of Rs. 36323.44 and treating that he is not a pension optee under the Pension Scheme 1995 is certainly a hyper technical plea depriving him of his legitimate right for which he was entitled after becoming member of Pension Scheme 1995 and after he stood voluntarily retired in 2004 almost more than 11 years have rolled by now and he is completely hand to mouth and his right of survival which is being guaranteed u/Art.21 of the Constitution of India has been violated by the insurance company while not treating him pension optee under the Pension Scheme 1995 and submits that deduction, if any, could have been made under Clause 48 of the Scheme of 1995 and submits that at least the respondent employee be treated pension optee and may be granted pensionary benefits and non refundable withdrawal amount as alleged of a sum of Rs. 36623.44 with whatever interest the company considered appropriate be adjusted from his pension fund and balance be released to him from the date of his retirement on 27.2.2004 treating him as pension optee under the Scheme of 1995. 13. We have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material placed on record. 14. 36623.44 with whatever interest the company considered appropriate be adjusted from his pension fund and balance be released to him from the date of his retirement on 27.2.2004 treating him as pension optee under the Scheme of 1995. 13. We have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material placed on record. 14. Before we may proceed to examine the matter, let us first take note of the Pension Scheme 1995 which was notified by the Govt, of India on 28.6.1995 in exercise of power conferred by Section 17-A of the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972 by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India in Extraordinary Gazette Part II Section 3 sub section (ii). The Scheme is called as Pension Scheme 1995 and deemed to have come into force w.e.f. 1.11.1993 and is applicable to the employees of three different categories firstly who were in service of the Corporation or Company as the case may be on or after the first day of January, 1986 but had retired before the first day of November, 1993; secondly, those who have retired on or after the 1st day of November, 1993 but before the notified date and third category of the employees of which presently we are concerned is such of he employees who are in the service of the Corporation or a Company before the notified date and continue to be in service of the Corporation or a Company on or after the notified date. 15. 15. As we are concerned with Chapter-II para 3, extract of which reads id infra- (3) Application- This scheme shall apply to employees who,- (1)(a) were in the service of the Corporation or a Company, as the case may be, on or after the first day of January, 1986 but had retired before the first day of November, 1993; and (b) exercise an option in writing within one hundred and twenty days from the notified date to become member of the Fund; and (c) refund within sixty days after the expiry of the said period of one hundred and twenty days specified in clause (by the entire amount of the Provident Fund including interest accrued thereon together with a further simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the said amount from the date of settlement of the Provident Fund account till the date of refund of the aforesaid amount to the Corporation or a Company, as the case may be; and (d) refund within sixty days after the expiry of the said period of one hundred and twenty days specified in clause (b), the entire amount of non refundable withdrawal if any made from Corporation's contribution or the Company's contribution to the Provident Fund account and interest accrued thereon, prior to the date of final settlement of the Provident Fund account, together with interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum from the date of withdrawal till the date of settlement of the Provident Fund account together with a further simple interest on the said amount at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of settlement of the Provident Fund account till the date of refund; or (2) (a) have retired on or after the 1st day of November, 1993 but before the notified date; and (b) exercise an option in writing within one hundred and twenty days from the notified date to become member of the Fund; and (c) refund within sixty days after the expiry of the said period of one hundred and twenty days specified in clause (b), the entire amount of the Corporation's contribution or the Company's contribution as the case may be, to the Provident Fund and interest accrued thereon together with a further simple interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum on the said amount from the date of settlement of the Provident Fund account till the date of refund of the aforesaid amount to the Cooperation or the Company as the case may be; and (d) refund within sixty days after the expiry of the said period of one hundred and twenty days specified in clause (b), the entire amount of non-refundable withdrawal, if any made from the Corporation's contribution or the Company's contribution as the case may be to the Provident Fund account and interest accrued thereon, prior to the date of final settlement of the Provident Fund account, together with interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum form the date of withdrawal till the date of settlement of Provident Fund account together with a further simple interest on the said amount at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of settlement of the Provident Fund account till the date of refund; or 3(a) are in the service of the Corporation or a Company before the notified date and continue to be in the service of the Corporation or a Company on or after the notified date; and (b) exercise an option in writing within one hundred and twenty days from the notified date to become member of the Fund; and (c) authorise the trust of the Provident Fund to transfer the entire contribution of the Corporation or of the Company to their Provident Fund along with the interest accrued thereon to the credit of the Fund constituted for the purpose under paragraph 5; and (d) refund within sixty days after the expiry of the said period of one hundred and twenty days specified in sub paragraph (b), to the Corporation or a Company, as the case may be, any non refundable withdrawal made from the Corporation's contribution or the Company's contribution to the Provident Fund account and interest accrued thereon together with interest at the date of twelve per cent per annum from the date of such withdrawal until the date of its refund to the Corporation or the Company. Para 48 of Pension Scheme 1995 reads ad infra- Recovery of dues of the Corporation or a Company- "The Corporation or a Company shall be entitled to recover the dues to the Corporation or a Company on account of housing loans, advances, license fee, other recoveries and recoveries due to employer's co-operative credit Societies from one commutation value of the pension or the pension or the family pension".s 16. The illegal position is settled that Pension Scheme 1995 is a statutory scheme and binding on the authority and also on the public and there cannot be any deviation of conditions regulated under the Scheme 1995 and there is no confusion that the present scheme has the force of law and each is under obligation to comply with the conditions notified under the Pension Scheme 1995. 17. Both the Scheme either Contributory Provident Fund or Pension Scheme is in the nature of substitute for old age because by passage of time it was felt that in prevailing conditions one need quantified sum for his survival in old age but still there is quite apparent distinction between the contributory provident fund and the pension scheme. 18. In the provident fund scheme the employees give matching contribution made by the employer in his account till he retires and once the employee is retired, then his rights qua employer's contribution into his CPF account finally crystallizes. In fact in the case of an employee governed by the provident fund scheme his relations with the employer come to an end on his retirement and receipt of the PF amount but in the case of an employee governed under the pension scheme his relations with the employer merely undergo a change but do not snap altogether. Pension Scheme was introduced by the insurance company in 1995 with retrospective effect from 1.11.1993 and option was afforded to even such of the employees who stood retired on or after 1.1.1986 at least a decade before the Scheme was introduced and certainly is a benevolent scheme. Pension is a periodic payment of an amount to the employee, after his retirement from service by his employer until death. It is in fact in the form of deferred payment of compensation for past satisfactory service. It is dependable on the condition of rendering of qualifying service by the employee for a certain fixed period of time with decent behaviour. It is in fact in the form of deferred payment of compensation for past satisfactory service. It is dependable on the condition of rendering of qualifying service by the employee for a certain fixed period of time with decent behaviour. In the pension scheme, employer's obligation begins only when the employee retires and it continues till the death of the employee. Pension is certainly not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the employer but is a valuable right vesting in an employee governed by the relevant rules and it can be claimed as a matter of right. 19. In Krishena Kumar v. Union of India 1990(4) SCC 207 , Hon'ble the Apex Court has held ad infra- 32-"On the other under the pension scheme the government's obligation does not begin until the employee retires and it continues till the death of the employee. Thus, on the retirement of an employee Government's 1 legal obligation under the provident fund account ends while under the Pension Scheme it begins. 20. In Prabhu Narain v. State of U.P. reported in (2004) 13 SCC 662 , the Apex court has held ad infra- 5. No doubt pension is not a bounty, it is a valuable right given to an employee, but, in the first place it must be shown that the employee is entitled to pension under a particular rule or the scheme, as the case may be". 21. In U.P. Raghvendra Acharya v. State of Karnataka reported in (2006) 9 SCC 630 , the Apex Court held ad infra- 25.- Pension, as is well known, is not a bounty. It is treated to be a deferred salary. It is akin to right of property. It is correlated and has a nexus with the salary payable to the employees as on the date of retirement". 22. In Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Mangal Singh & Ors. reported in (2011) 11 SCC 702 , the Apex Court held ad infra- "To sum up, we state that the concept of pension has been considered by this Court time and again and in a catena of cases it has been observed that the pension is not a charity or bounty nor is it a conditional payment a solely dependent on the sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendering a long and satisfactory service. It is earned for rendering a long and satisfactory service. It is in the nature of deferred payment for the past services. It is a social security plan consistent with the socio-economic requirements of the Constitution when the employer is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution rendering 2 social justice to a superannuated Government servant. It is a right attached to the office and cannot be arbitrarily denied". 23. Taking note of basic principles of two separate schemes of which we have made reference in details, the basic distinction in short is that pension is payable periodically as long as the pensioner is alive whereas CPF 3 are separate and distinct. Once the employee is retired, then his rights qua Government/employer's contribution into his CPF account finally crystallizes. After retirement, this entire PF amount is paid to the employee as a retiral benefit. On the receipt of the CPF amount, the relationship between employee and employer ceases to exist without leaving any further legal right or obligation qua each other. 24. At the same time, pension is a periodic payment of an amount to the employee, after his retirement from service by his employer till his death and even Dependents of the deceased employee gets the family pension and in fact it is paid for the past satisfactory service rendered by the employee and this Court can certainly take judicial notice that pensionary benefits under the pension scheme basically appears to be a social economic security to the employee and family after retirement from service and obligation of the employer continues with the employee till his death. It appears to be a social security plan consistent with the socio-economic requirements of the Constitution and in our view the employer within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution rendering social justice to a superannuated employee and it is a right attached to the office and cannot be arbitrarily denied. 25. It appears to be a social security plan consistent with the socio-economic requirements of the Constitution and in our view the employer within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution rendering social justice to a superannuated employee and it is a right attached to the office and cannot be arbitrarily denied. 25. In the instant case, taking note of the principles discussed in detail, we find that the existing Pension Scheme 1995 is a statutory scheme and introduced retrospectively w.e.f. 1.11.1993 but effectively covered the employees retired on or after 1.1.1986 and its applicability and eligibility as envisaged from Chapter II extract of which we have referred above clearly indicates that even such of the employees who were retired on or after 1.1.1986 benefit has been extended to them provided they fulfil the conditions enumerated under the Pension Scheme 1995. What manifests to this Court is that those who have availed the accrued benefits under the Contributory Provident Fund obviously on retirement they were under obligation to refund the entire amount to the company including interest accrued thereon within the stipulated period. What manifests to this Court is that those who have availed the accrued benefits under the Contributory Provident Fund obviously on retirement they were under obligation to refund the entire amount to the company including interest accrued thereon within the stipulated period. The employees who are covered under para 3(1)(a) of Chapter II who were in the service of the Corporation or a Company, as the case may be, on or after the first day of January, 1986 but had retired before the first day of November, 1993 have been considered a separate class and such of the employees who retired on or after 1.11.1993 but before the notified date they constitute a separate class and covered under Chapter II para (3)(2)(a) and those who are in the service of the Corporation or a Company on or after the notified date and continue to be in the service of the Corporation or company are covered under Chapter II para (3)(3)(a) to which the present respondent employee is concerned are considered a separate class and retiree/employee of each category has to exercise option in writing within one hundred and twenty days from the notified date to become member of the Pension Fund and authorise the trust of the Provident Fund to transfer the entire contribution of the Corporation or of the Company along with the interest accrued thereon to their Pension Fund created for the purpose under paragraph 5 and refund thereafter within sixty days as specified in sub-paragraph (d), to the Corporation or a Company, as the case may be, any non refundable withdrawal made from the Corporation's contribution or the Company's contribution to the Provident Fund account and interest accrued thereon together with interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum from the date of such withdrawal until the date of its refund to the Corporation or the Company. 26. 26. In the instant case, indisputably the amount credited in the account of respondent employee with the provident fund was transferred to pension fund & credited by the company and on transfer of the entire contributory provident fund along with interest accrued thereon to the Pension Fund and after the settlement of his account he was treated to be a pension optee and his name was included in the list of pension optees and sent by the department as being indicated from the PF statements pertaining to the years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 and insurance company started making deduction towards pension and was regularly sent to the pension department continuously from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1998 and no correspondence took place thereafter that he will not be considered to be a pension optee unless sum of Rs. 36,323.44 is refunded which according to the respondent is non refundable withdrawal from the company's contribution to the provident fund account and he was under the bona fide belief that his objection has been accepted and his account has been settled after his name being notified as pension optee and as such when the company called fresh option in April 1977 under the Pension (Amendment) Scheme 1997 from such of the employees who could not submit their option earlier, at least there was no occasion for the present respondent employee to submit fresh option and to his dismay the later dated 4.1.1999 was sent by the PF Department, Mumbai to the Pension Department directing that since the respondent employee had not refunded Company's contribution of Non-Refundable Withdrawal before 26.12.1995, his name accordingly stands deleted from the pension optees, which is as per decision of the Pension Department, Head Office, New Delhi vide their letter dated 18.1.1996 for the reason that he had failed to deposit non refundable withdrawal from the company's contribution to the provident fund account of Rs. 36,323.44 in terms of clause 3(3)(d) of Chapter II and he had breached the condition and as per the stand of the insurance company he was to continue as member of provident fund scheme and entitled to get the contribution under the provident fund scheme on retirement under voluntary retirement scheme on 27.2.2004. 27. 36,323.44 in terms of clause 3(3)(d) of Chapter II and he had breached the condition and as per the stand of the insurance company he was to continue as member of provident fund scheme and entitled to get the contribution under the provident fund scheme on retirement under voluntary retirement scheme on 27.2.2004. 27. We find that the ex-employees who stood retired on or after 1.1.1986 or the date on which the Scheme was notified, under para 3(1)(d) & 3(2)(d) of the Scheme if intended to shift from contributory provident fund to the Pension Scheme 1995, provident fund being credited to their account on retirement was to be deposited for becoming member of pension scheme but in the instant case being the serving employee Provident Fund of Rs. 2,50,000/- approx. to his credit was transferred to pension fund and non refundable withdrawal of the company's contribution to the provident fund at any later point of time on his protest appears to be accepted after the name of the respondent employee was included in the list of pension optees and treated to be a pension optee for the period 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and the appellant company never served a notice that there is any outstanding thereafter and we find justification in the contention of the employee that everything was settled after his name was included in the list of pension optees and the company started deducting fund from the salary for three consecutive years and in our considered view taking decision at a later stage to delete his name from the list of pension optees in November 1999 and asking him to remain the member of provident fund scheme in these facts & circumstances cannot be considered to be acceptable in the eye of law. 28. It is true that the Id. Single Judge under its order impugned observed that if at all there was any due that could have been settled with the respondent by invoking clause 48 of the Pension Scheme 1995 and it is applicable to such of the employees who become member of Pension Scheme 1995. 28. It is true that the Id. Single Judge under its order impugned observed that if at all there was any due that could have been settled with the respondent by invoking clause 48 of the Pension Scheme 1995 and it is applicable to such of the employees who become member of Pension Scheme 1995. In the facts & circumstances of the case, after the respondent employee became member of the Pension Scheme 1995 and his name being included in the list of pension optees if at all the appellant company was of the view that something is still due to be recovered Clause 48 of the Pension Scheme 1995 could have been invoked by the appellant company but after he being treated to be a pension optee deleting his name from the list of pension optees in Nov. 1999 was rightly rejected by the Ld. Single Judge. 29. The judgment on which the appellant company has placed reliance reported in (2011) 11 SCC 702 Pepsu Road Transport Corporate v. Mangal Singh & Ors. & 2013(2) WLC (SC) Civil 136 : 2013 (11) SCC 603 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Madhu Giri (dead) through LRs & Anr. is quite distinguishable in the facts 5 circumstances of the case before us and may not of any assistance for the reason that it was a case where the employees have availed the retira benefits arising out of CPF and gratuity without any protest and they have not claimed pensionary benefits under the Pension Scheme and claimed o only after their retirement with inordinate delay or more than 8 years and that being the reason the Apex Court while interpreting Reg. 4(iii) of the Regulations 1992 observed that it is a deeming provision to the effect; firstly, if an employee fails to exercise his option within a period of six months from the date of issue of these Regulations; and secondly, even on 5 exercise of option, if an employee fails to refund the amount of advance taken from the employer's contribution of CPF within six months from the date of issue of these Regulations, then it shall be deemed that the employee has opted to continue the existing CPF benefits which is not the fact situation and as we have already observed in the instant case the employee submitted option and after his name was included in the list of pension optees all such speculations were ruled out and this is the reason when fresh options were called in 1997 there was no occasion for the respondent employee to submit his option and contributory provident fund was duly adjusted by the company against Pension Fund and he was treated to be pension optee in the PF statements pertaining to the years 1995-96, 1996-97 & 1997-98 no deductions or contribution of the Insurance Company were credited to the PF account of the respondent employee and at this stage deleting his name from the list of pension optees in Nov. 1999 was not considered to be the valid decision in the eye of law. 30. We do not find any substance in the special appeal and deserves to be dismissed. Since the respondent employee has retired on 27.2.2004 & almost 11 years have rolled by now for ventilating his grievance and practically has not been paid a penny so far against retiral dues since 2004, in the facts & circumstances, we consider it appropriate to direct that while treating the respondent employee to be a pension optee under Pension Scheme 1995 & after due adjustment of the amount which as alleged by the insurance company if considered to be outstanding with interest may be appropriated from his pension & arrears under the Scheme 1995 be computed and be paid to him along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with all other consequential benefits flowing thereof within a period of two months. No cost.Appeal disposed of as above. *******