ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 04.10.2019 and quash the same and consequential direction to the respondents to accept the Form-II submitted to the respondents vide application dated 21.08.2019 under the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995 and to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The case of the petitioner is that she is an ex-employee of the respondents' company and she had opted the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme offered by the respondents' company and voluntarily retired from the service of the respondents' company on 12.03.2004 and the petitioner had completed 19 years 7 months and 9 days during her tenure in the said company. The respondents' company made amendment General Insurance (Employees') Pension Amendment Scheme, 2019 in the Pension Scheme and made a provision to give one more option to join in the Pension Scheme and required to submit Form-II as per the Scheme. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that she submitted Form-II for the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995 and as per the new amendment of the scheme to the respondents' company on 21.08.2019 before the second respondent and forwarded the same to the 1 st respondent. After receipt of the same, the first respondent vide order dated 04.10.2019 rejected the Form II submitted by the petitioner stating that the petitioner is not eligible for pension under the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Amendment Scheme, 2019. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 4. After receipt of the same, the first respondent vide order dated 04.10.2019 rejected the Form II submitted by the petitioner stating that the petitioner is not eligible for pension under the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Amendment Scheme, 2019. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on sub paragraph 11 of para 3 inserted vide Notification of the Ministry of Finance (Department of Financial Services), New Delhi dated 23.04.2019 and the same is extracted hereunder :- (11) joined the service of the Corporation or a Company, as the case may be, before the 28 th day of June, 1995, but retired before the said date: (a) within one hundred and twenty days from the said date: (i) exercise an option in writing to become the member of the Fund; (ii) authorise the Corporation or the Company , as the case may be, to transfer the entire contribution of the Corporation or of the Company to their provident Fund that may accrue to them if any revision of scales of pay is effected from a date prior to the date of their retirement; (b) within sixty days after the expiry of one hundred and twenty days specified in clause (a) (i) refund to the Corporation or the Company, as the case may be, the entire amount of the Corporation's contribution or the Company's contribution to Provident Fun and interest accrued thereon received by the employee on retirement along with the entire amount of non-refundable withdrawal, if any, made from the Corporation's contribution or Company's contribution, as the case may be, to the Provident Fund account. (ii) pay to the Corporation or the Company, as the case may be , an amount equal to 0.3 times of the amount arrived at in sub-clause (i) above, as a one time contribution to the fund; Provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 51 of this Scheme, pension to such employees shall become payable from the said date. 5. (ii) pay to the Corporation or the Company, as the case may be , an amount equal to 0.3 times of the amount arrived at in sub-clause (i) above, as a one time contribution to the fund; Provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 51 of this Scheme, pension to such employees shall become payable from the said date. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on Note 3 inserted vide Notification of the Ministry of Finance (Department of Financial Services), New Delhi dated 23.04.2019 and the same is extracted hereunder :- B. For the purpose of this paragraph, after Note(2), the following notes will be inserted, namely :- “Note: (3) Sub-paragraphs (10), (11), (12) and (13) shall also apply, mutatis mutandis, to employees who opted for Special Voluntary Retirement Package under clause 15C of the General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and Other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) Scheme, 1976 or opted for special voluntary retirement under the General Insurance Officers' Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004 or the General Insurance Employees' Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004 or opted for voluntary separation under General Insurance (Public Sector) Officer's Golden Gate Scheme for Voluntary Separation, 2009, as the case may be, after rendering qualifying service for a minimum period of twenty years; Provided that the benefits of increase of qualifying service by maximum five years as stipulated in sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 30 of this Scheme shall not be admissible to such employees. 6. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner joined the respondents' company on 03.08.1984 and retired under the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme (SVRS) on 12.03.2004. The petitioner submitted an application on 21.08.2019 for grant of pension in view of the Notification dated 23.04.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Financial Services) , New Delhi and the same was rejected on 04.10.2019 by the respondents' company. 7. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 on 29.12.2021. Relevant paragraphs of the said counter affidavit are extracted hereunder :- 5. 7. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 on 29.12.2021. Relevant paragraphs of the said counter affidavit are extracted hereunder :- 5. I submit that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 17A of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (57 of 1972), the Central Government formulated and gazetted the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Pension Scheme, vide S.O.No.585(E) dated 28.06.1995, for the employees, who were in the services of the company before 28.06.1995 and continue to be in service on or after 28.06.1995, as mentioned in paragraph 3(3)(a) of the said Pension Scheme. The petitioner had consciously not opted for the said benefit within the period of 120 days from 28.06.1995, as mentioned in Paragraph 3(3)(b) of the said Pension Scheme. 7. I further submit that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 17 A of the General Insurance Business ( Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (57 of 1972), the Central Government formulated the General Insurance Officers Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2004 (hereinafter called as 'SVRS Scheme') vide gazette Notification No.S.O.7 (E) dated 01.01.2004, the petitioner had applied for voluntary retirement in accordance with the terms and conditions of the said SVRS Scheme. Further, the Company had accepted her voluntary retirement under the SVRS Scheme on 12.03.2004 and relieved her from services of the Company at the close of office hours on 12.03.2004 and all her dues towards SVRS payable amount namely Ex-gratia amount of Rs.6,14,916/- out of which, the company paid Rs.77,782/- after making recoveries including audit recoveries of Rs.5,37,134/- Leave Encashment of Rs.23,794/- Gratuity of Rs.1,64,966/- P.F.amount of Rs.3,56,619/- (Company PF amount + own PF amount) and payable G.S.L.I amount were released. 8(b) I submit that the petitioner has not rendered minimum qualifying service i.e. period of 20 years (the petitioner has completed only 19 years of service). In view of the same, the Respondent expressed their inability to consider the petitioner's request for the said pensionary benefits, as requested by her by option Form No.II dated 21.08.2019 vide registered A/D letter No.NIACL/Pension Cell/2019 dated 04.10.2019." 8. In view of the same, the Respondent expressed their inability to consider the petitioner's request for the said pensionary benefits, as requested by her by option Form No.II dated 21.08.2019 vide registered A/D letter No.NIACL/Pension Cell/2019 dated 04.10.2019." 8. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has completed only 19 years of service and she had received all the retirement benefits on 12.03.2004, immediately after attaining the age of superannuation and further drew attention of this court to paragraph 30 in Chapter-5 of the General Insurance (Employee') Pension Scheme, 1995. Paragraph 30 deals with Pension on voluntary retirement and the relevant portion reads as under :- (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, in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service. 9. He would further submit that she received all the benefits under VLRS in the year 2004, she is not eligible for pension under Notification dated 23.04.2019. The petitioner after the amendment which came into effect on 23.04.2019 has given the application for pension under Form II which is after a delay of 15 years from the date of superannuation on 10.07.2004 under Special Voluntarily Retirement Scheme opted by the respondent's company. Therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for the pension scheme since she retired 15 years back and also received all the retirement benefits. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- i) In DTC v. Balwan Singh, (2019) 18 SCC 126 ii) In LIC v. Shree Lal Meena, (2019) 4 SCC 479 iii) In U.P. Roadways Retired Officials & Officers Assn. v. State of U.P. (2024) 9 SCC 331 11. The learned counsel further submitted that in the case of National Insurance Company Limited and Another vs. Kirpal Singh, (2014) 5 Supreme Court Cases 189 and Indian Bank and Another vs. N. Venkatramani relied by the petitioner is not applicable to the case of the petitioner since the amendment came into effect only on 23.04.2019 and the relied/cited case is pertaining to 2004 Scheme. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the materials available on records. 13. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the materials available on records. 13. In the case on hand, the petitioner joined her service of the respondents' company on 03.08.1994 and retired from service on 10.07.2004 under the benefit offered by her i.e. Special Voluntary Retirement Pension Scheme. The respondents' company made an amendment to General Insurance (Employees')Pension Scheme only in the year 2019 wherein the petitioner's retired 15 years back i.e. 10.07.2004 . 14. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has received all the retirement benefits as early as 12.04.2004 from the respondent company and the petitioner has not rendered minimum qualifying service i.e. period of 20 years but whereas, the petitioner has only rendered as 19 years 7 months 9 days of service. As per the amendment in the gazetted notification S.O.1627(E) dated 23.04.2019 for employees an option to join the said Pension Scheme, who joined the Company before 28.06.1995 but had retired from services of the company before 23.04.2019 as mentioned in paragraph 3(11) of the said Pension Scheme. Further, Note No.3 to paragraph 3 of the said Gazette Notification dated 23.04.2019, the said pensions scheme was made applicable to employees, who opted for Special Voluntary Retirement Package under SVRS Scheme and have rendered qualifying service of minimum period of 20 years. Further, the benefit of increase of qualifying service by maximum 5 years as stipulated in sub paragraph 30 of this Scheme ( Paragraph 30 refers to Pension on voluntary retirement) shall not be admissible to such employees (SVRS Optees) 15. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent's company had accepted the voluntary retirement of the petitioner under SVRS Scheme and relieved her from service on 10.07.2004 . It is also to be mentioned that the employees who were in the services of the company before 28.06.1995 and continued in service on or after 28.06.1995 as mentioned in para 3(3)(a) of the said Pension Scheme can opt for pension but the petitioner had not opted for the said benefit within the period of 120 days from 28.06.1995, as mentioned in paragraph 3(3)(b) of the said Pension Scheme. Hence, the petitioner had not opted the benefit for the first time on 28.06.1995 and for the 2 nd time on 22.04.1997 for the said scheme while in service and now the petitioner submitted the application in Form II dated 21.08.2019 after 15 years from the date of voluntary retirement i.e. on 10.07.2004 and the amendment which came into effect on 23.04.2019. Therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for the said pension scheme. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents placed reliance on the following Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:- i) In DTC v. Balwan Singh, (2019) 18 SCC 126 , it has been held as under :- 23. We have, thus, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that to avail of the benefit of the Pension Rules, an employee must qualify in terms of the Rules. In the present case, the respondents unfortunately do not do so, as the period which is sought to be excluded from their qualifying service is one where they have admittedly not been paid leave salary. The qualifying period for the VRS would have to be governed by that Scheme and cannot ipso facto be imported into the entitlement of pension, contrary to the plain wordings of the Pension Rules. We see no conflict in this, apart from the fact that the Pension Rules came into force actually much later, though the intention was announced just before the VRS. The respondents were governed prior to that by the Employees Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. ii) In LIC v. Shree Lal Meena, (2019) 4 SCC 479 , relevant portion is extracted hereunder :- 26. There are some observations on the principles of public sectors being model employers and provisions of pension being beneficial legislations. [Shashikala Devi v. Central Bank of India, (2014) 16 SCC 260 : (2015) 3 SCC (L&S) 319; Asger Ibrahim Amin v. LIC, (2016) 13 SCC 797 : (2015) 3 SCC (L&S) 12] We may, however, note that as per what we have opined aforesaid, the issue cannot be dealt with on a charity principle. When the legislature, in its wisdom, brings forth certain beneficial provisions in the form of Pension Regulations from a particular date and on particular terms and conditions, aspects which are excluded cannot be included in it by implication. When the legislature, in its wisdom, brings forth certain beneficial provisions in the form of Pension Regulations from a particular date and on particular terms and conditions, aspects which are excluded cannot be included in it by implication. The provisions will have to be read as they read unless there is some confusion or they are capable of another interpretation. We may also note that while framing such schemes, there is an important aspect of them being of a contributory nature and their financial implications. Such financial implications are both, for the contributors and for the State. Thus, it would be inadvisable to expand such beneficial schemes beyond their contours to extend them to employees for whom they were not meant for by the legislature. iii) U.P. Roadways Retired Officials & Officers Assn. v. State of U.P. (2024) 9 SCC 331 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1818 at page 348 r elevant portion is extracted hereunder :- 44. In Prabhu Narain v. State of U.P. (2004) 13 SCC 662 , this Court held that to receive pension the employees must establish that they are entitled to pension under a particular rule or scheme. The following has been held in para 5 : (SCC p. 664) “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.” 45. In yet another judgment rendered in Rajasthan SRTC v. Madu Giri, (2013) 11 SCC 603 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 141 , it is held thus in paras 7, 8 & 9 : (SCC pp. 605-606) “7. The Division Bench [Rajasthan SRTC v. Madugiri, 2006 SCC OnLine Raj 1702] has considered the Regulations but failed to notice that there is apparent error in the order [ Madugiri v. Rajasthan SRTC, 2006 SCC OnLine Raj 1703] passed by the learned Single Judge. Indisputably, the employees concerned retired from service in 1991 and 1992 and after retirement they were paid CPF including the share of employer's contribution. Hence, as per Regulation 3 of the Regulations, no right accrued to the appellants/employees to claim pensionary benefits without first depositing the amount and complying with the Regulations. 8. Indisputably, the employees concerned retired from service in 1991 and 1992 and after retirement they were paid CPF including the share of employer's contribution. Hence, as per Regulation 3 of the Regulations, no right accrued to the appellants/employees to claim pensionary benefits without first depositing the amount and complying with the Regulations. 8. The matter was examined by this Court in PRTC v. Mangal EPSU Singh, (2011) 11 SCC 702 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 322 wherein it was held as under : (SCC p. 722, paras 51-52) ‘51. The common thread which runs through all these appeals canvassed before us is that the respondents have failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Regulations, which govern the Pension Scheme. We have already considered the nature and effect of the Regulations, which are made under a statute. These statutory regulations require to be interpreted in the same manner which is adopted while interpreting any other statutory provisions. The Corporation as well as the respondents are obliged and bound to comply with its mandatory conditions and requirements. Any action or conduct deviating from these conditions shall render such action illegal and invalid. Moreover, the respondents have availed the retiral benefits arising out of CPF and gratuity without any protest. 52. The respondents in all these appeals, before us, have made a claim for pensionary benefits under the Pension Scheme for the first time only after their retirement with an unreasonable delay of more than 8 years. It is not in dispute, in some appeals, that the respondents never opted for the Pension Scheme for their alleged want of knowledge for non-service of individual notices. In other appeals, although the respondents applied for the option of the Pension Scheme but indisputably never fulfilled the quintessential conditions envisaged by the Regulations which are statutory in nature.’ 9. We are, therefore, of the opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by this Court in the judgment referred to hereinabove, the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge [Madugiri v. Rajasthan SRTC, 2006 SCC OnLine Raj 1703 ] and the Division Bench [Rajasthan SRTC v. Madugiri, 2006 SCC OnLine Raj 1702] of the High Court cannot be sustained in law.” 46. The common thread in the above referred judgments of this Court is that pension is a right and not a bounty. It is a constitutional right for which an employee is entitled on his superannuation. However, pension can be claimed only when it is permissible under the relevant rules or a scheme. If an employee is covered under the Provident Fund Scheme and is not holding a pensionable post, he cannot claim pension, nor the writ court can issue mandamus directing the employer to provide pension to an employee who is not covered under the rules. 17. The petitioner is not eligible for the above Pension Scheme by relying on the amendment which came into effect by way of notification on 23.04.2019 for the following reasons:- i) The petitioner voluntarily retired from the respondent company under the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme (SVRS) with effect from 12.03.2004. ii) The petitioner received all her retirement benefits which she is entitled as per the rules of the Respondent Insurance Company in the year 2004 itself i.e on 12.03.2004. iii) This amendment was introduced on 23.04.2019 that is 15 years after the superannuation of the petitioner in the year 2004. iv) The petitioner have not completed 20 years of service as stipulated in para 30 of Chapter-5 of the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995. v) The petitioner has completed service of only 19 years, 7 months and 9 days and does not have the minimum qualifying service of 20 years as stated supra. vi) The petitioner has not opted for the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995 introduced on 28.06.1995 within a period of 120 days from 28.06.1995. vi) The respondent for the second time allowed the employees to join the Pension Scheme as on the date of notification i.e. on 22.04.1997 and the petitioner failed to utilize this opportunity for the second time also. vii) In view of the above ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court of India as stated supra. 18. In view of the above factual matrix of the case, reasons and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 04.10.2019 vide Reference NIACL/Pension Cell/2019 does not warrant any interference by this Court and the same is liable to be confirmed and accordingly it is confirmed. 19. In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. 19. In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.