NATIONAL INSURANCE SPECIAL VOLUNTARY RETIRED/ RETIRED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ANR.versusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

642                     [2018]REPORTS
              SUPREME COURT   12 S.C.R. 642               [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A      NATIONAL INSURANCE SPECIAL VOLUNTARY RETIRED/
            RETIRED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ANR.
                                      v.
              UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
B                      (Civil Appeal No. 10775 of 2018)
                             OCTOBER 26, 2018
         [KURIAN JOSEPH AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
             Service Law – Voluntary Retirement – Appellant-ex-employees
      of the respondent Insurance Companies went out of service taking
C
      advantage of the General Insurance Employees’ Special Voluntary
      Retirement Scheme, 2004 (SVRS-2004 Scheme) – Appellants
      contended that they were also entitled to claim benefits under the
      earlier scheme known as the General Insurance (Employees)
      Pension Scheme, 1995, which inter alia provided that qualifying
D     service of an employee, retiring under 1995 scheme, would be
      increased by a period not exceeding 5 years, subject to certain
      conditions – Held: The SVRS-2004 Scheme specifically excluded
      the benefit of additional 5 years’ service of the 1995 Scheme for
      purpose of determining the quantum of pension and commutation
      of pension to such employees who availed retirement under the SVRS-
E
      2004 Scheme – The SVRS scheme being a Scheme u/s.17-A of the
      General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, it was not
      appropriate to add or subtract terms from the Scheme, which has a
      statutory flavour – Thus, such statutory or contractual voluntary
      retirement schemes as the SVRS-2004 Scheme have to be strictly
F     adhered to, and the very objective of having such Schemes would
      be defeated, if parts of other schemes are sought to be imported
      into such voluntary retirement schemes – General Insurance Business
      (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 – s.17-A.
            Dismissing the appeals, the Court
G           HELD: 1. It is, thus, quite apparent that clause 6(c), of the
      General Insurance Employees’ Special Voluntary Retirement
      Scheme, 2004 (SVRS-2004 Scheme) as part of the overall
      package, clearly stated that the notional benefit of five (5) years
      of added service, as stipulated in para 30 of the General Insurance
H     (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995, would not be admissible for
                                       642
  NATIONAL INSURANCE SPECIAL VOLUNTARY RETIRED/RETIRED              643
        EMPLOYEES ASSN. v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE


purposes of determining the quantum of pension and commutation      A
of pension to such employees who availed retirement under the
SVRS-2004 Scheme. Suffice to say that the SVRS-2004 Scheme
provided for additional benefits beyond the 1995 Scheme, while
simultaneously curtailing this aforesaid aspect, specifically.
Despite this clear stipulation, the appellants sought the benefit
                                                                    B
of these very five (5) added notional years of service, for
calculation of their pension, under the SVRS-2004 Scheme, in
addition to the other benefits offered. This demand was declined
by the respondent Insurance Company. [Para 6] [647-C-D]
       2. The question for consideration is whether the
beneficiaries under the SVRS-2004 Scheme, which specifically        C
excludes the benefit of additional five (5) years’ service of the
1995 Scheme, would still be entitled to claim the said amount
contrary to the explicit terms. The answer to this question is in
the negative. It has to be appreciated that the SVRS-2004 Scheme
is statutory in character, being a Scheme under Section 17-A of     D
the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. It
would not be appropriate to add or subtract terms from the
Scheme, which has a statutory flavour. There could not have
been any concession contrary to the terms of the Scheme, and if
such a concession was to enure for the benefit of the retirees,
then it had to go through the process of a formal notification.     E
[Paras 14, 15] [649-G; 650-A-B]
      3. Statutory or contractual, such voluntary retirement
schemes as the SVRS-2004 Scheme, thus, have to be strictly
adhered to, and the very objective of having such Schemes would
be defeated, if parts of other Schemes are sought to be imported    F
into such voluntary retirement schemes. What is offered by the
employer is a package as contained in the Schemes of voluntary
retirement, and that alone would be admissible. [Para 20] [652-
D-E]
      4. It is, thus, abundantly clear that nothing more would be   G
given than what is stated in the Scheme, and for that matter,
nothing less. If the employees avail of the benefit of such a
Scheme with their eyes open, they cannot look here and there,
under different schemes, to see what other benefits can be
achieved by them, by seeking to take advantage of the more          H
644           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A     beneficial schemes, while simultaneously enjoying the more
      beneficial aspects of the SVRS-2004 Scheme. [Para 23] [653-C-
      D]
            Manojbhai N. Shah & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
            (2015) 4 SCC 482; State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas
B           Shrinivas Nayak & Anr. (1982) 2 SCC 463 : [1983]
            1 SCR 8; Y. Sleebachen & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu
            through Superintending Engineer Water Resources
            Organisation/Public Works Department & Anr. (2015)
            5 SCC 747; Tripura Goods Transport Association &
            Anr. v. Commissioner of Taxes & Ors. (1998) 2 SCC
C           264; New India Assurance Company Limited v. Raghuvir
            Singh Narang & Anr. (2010) 5 SCC 335 : [2010] 4
            SCR 299; Bank of India & Ors. v. O. P. Swarnakar &
            Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 721 : [2002] 5 Suppl. SCR 438;
            HEC Voluntary Retired Employees Welfare Society &
D           Anr. v. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
            (2006) 3 SCC 708 : [2006] 2 SCR 678 - referred to.
                             Case Law Reference
      (2015) 4 SCC 482                referred to          Para 7
      [1983] 1 SCR 8                  referred to          Para 16
E     (2015) 5 SCC 747                referred to          Para 17
      (1998) 2 SCC 264                referred to          Para 18
      [2010] 4 SCR 299                referred to          Para 18
      [2002] 5 Suppl. SCR 438         referred to          Para 19
      [2006] 2 SCR 678                referred to          Para 19
F
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10775
      of 2018
            From the Judgment and Order dated 17.07.2017 of the High
      Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench in W.A.MD. No. 1228
      of 2016.
G
                                     WITH
            Civil Appeal No. 10776, 10777, 10778 of 2018.
            Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv., Gautam Narayan, Ms. Asmita
      Singh, Abhinav Goyal, Advs. for the appellants.
H
   NATIONAL INSURANCE SPECIAL VOLUNTARY RETIRED/RETIRED                          645
         EMPLOYEES ASSN. v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE


      Rakesh Dwivedi, Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., Vivek Kishore, Mrs.               A
Rajya Lakshmi, Advs. for the respondents.
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. 1. Leave granted.
       2. The appellants are ex-employees of the respondent Insurance            B
Companies, who initially joined as Assistants, between 1972 to 1980,and
went out of service taking advantage of the General Insurance Employees’
Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004 (for short ‘SVRS-2004
Scheme’). The bone of contention is the plea of these appellants, that
they are also entitled to certain benefits arising under the earlier scheme
                                                                                 C
known as The General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995
(for short ‘1995 Scheme’), which inter alia provided that the qualifying
service of an employee, retiring under that1995Scheme, would be
increased by a period not exceeding five (5) years, subject to certain
conditions.
       3. The concept of providing pension to the employees of the               D
respondent Insurance Companies was introduced for the first time by
the 1995 Scheme, which was notified in the Gazette of India on 28.6.1995,
but was brought into force from 1.11.1993. The relevant para 30 of the
1995Scheme, which is of concern to the present dispute, is as under:
        “30. Pension on voluntary retirement -                                   E

          (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:…………”
                                                                                 F
          xxxx             xxxx              xxxx              xxxx     xxxx
          “(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 such employee shall not in any
                                                                                 G
          case exceed thirty three years and it does not take him beyond
          the date of retirement.”
      4. The aforesaid 1995 Scheme, thus, envisaged an additional
notional benefit of five (5) years’ service for employees retiring voluntarily
under it, with the limitation that the qualifying service rendered by such
                                                                                 H
646                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A     employees: (i) shall not, in any case, exceed 33 years; and (ii) does not
      take them beyond the date of retirement.
             5. The insurance companies were faced with excess manpower,
      and, thus, to prune the manpower size, a special scheme, being the SVRS-
      2004 Scheme, was introduced for a limited period of sixty (60) days
B     from the date of its notification, that is 1.1.2004. The Scheme was made
      applicable to permanent, full-time employees eligible to seek special
      voluntary retirement, provided that they had attained the age of 40 years
      and had completed the minimum qualifying service of ten (10) years, as
      on the date of notification. The relevant clauses 5 & 6 read as under:
C                 “5. Amount of ex-gratia:-
                  (1) An employee seeking Special Voluntary Retirement under
                  this Scheme shall been (sic.)1 entitled to lower of the ex-gratia
                  amount as given below, namely: sixty days salary for each
                  completed year of service, OR, salary for the number of months
D                 of remaining service.
                  (2) The ex-gratia shall be computed on the basis of his/her salary
                  as on the date of relieving. In case, wage revision is effected
                  from a date prior to the date of this notification in the Official
                  Gazette, the benefit of revised pay for the purpose of payment
E                 of ex-gratia will be allowed.
                  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 para5, namely:
F
                    (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;
G                   (c) Pension (including commuted value of pension) as per
                        General Insurance (Employees’) Pension Scheme,
                        1995, if eligible. However, the additional notional benefit
                        of five years of added service as stipulated in para 30
                        of the said pension scheme shall not be admissible for
      1
          To be read as ‘be’.
H
    NATIONAL INSURANCE SPECIAL VOLUNTARY RETIRED/RETIRED           647
EMPLOYEES ASSN. v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]


                  the purpose of determining the quantum of pension and         A
                  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   B
              date of notification of this scheme.”
                                                       (emphasis supplied)
        6. It is, thus, quite apparent that clause (c),as part of the overall
 package, clearly stated that the notional benefit of five (5) years of added
                                                                                C
 service, as stipulated in para 30 of the 1995 Scheme, would not be
 admissible for purposes of determining the quantum of pension and
 commutation of pension to such employees who availed retirement under
 the SVRS-2004 Scheme. Suffice to say that the SVRS-2004 Scheme
 provided for additional benefits beyond the 1995 Scheme, while
 simultaneously curtailing this aforesaid aspect, specifically. Despite this    D
 clear stipulation, the appellants sought the benefit of these very five (5)
 added notional years of service, for calculation of their pension, under
 the SVRS-2004 Scheme, in addition to the other benefits offered. This
 demand was declined by the respondent Insurance Company.
        7. There is a background to this lis inter se the parties. On an        E
 earlier occasion, the employees availing of the SVRS-2004 Scheme,
 sought to take advantage of the revision of pay-scales, as provided for
 under the notification dated 21.12.2005, which had retrospective effect
 from 1.8.2002. This benefit was denied on the ground that such of the
 persons who had availed voluntary retirement under the SVRS-2004
 Scheme had ceased to be employees of the respondent Insurance                  F
 Company and were, thus, not entitled to the benefit of revision of pay-
 scales, retrospectively.2 In coming to the conclusion, various clauses of
 the benefits given under the SVRS-2004 Scheme were taken note of,
 including sub-clause (c) of clause 6(1) reproduced hereinabove.
 However, what was sought to be taken advantage of was sub-clause               G
 (2) of Clause 5 of the SVRS-2004 Scheme, providing for ex-gratia to
 be computed on the basis of salary received as on the date of retirement,
 but also providing that in case of wage revision being effected from a
 date prior to the date of notification of the SVRS-2004 Scheme in the
 2
     See Manojbhai N. Shah &Ors. v. Union of India &Ors.(2015) 4 SCC 482.
                                                                                H
648                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A     Official Gazette, the benefit of revised pay for purposes of payment of
      ex-gratia would be allowed. It appears that in the course of justifying
      their actions, an argument was sought to be advanced on behalf of the
      insurance company, that apart from the objective of reduction of man-
      force, the employees were given ex-gratia payment which they were
      otherwise not entitled to, and were also given an additional amount of
B
      pension because a notional period of five (5) years had been added to
      the number of years served by them (It may be noted, however, that this
      is contrary to the clear stipulation in the SVRS-2004Scheme). This Court
      opined in favour of the insurance companies, specifically noticing that
      retrospective rise in salary is only given to those employees who are in
C     service at the relevant point in time or to those who retired in normal
      circumstances, and not to those employees opting under such special
      schemes, like the SVRS 2004 Scheme. No doubt the plea of five (5)
      years addition for calculation of pension was noticed in the judgement,
      however, no further discussion of the same formed part of the reasoning.
D           8. The beneficiaries of the SVRS-2004 Scheme sought a review
      of the judgment predicated on a plea that this Court had incorrectly
      recorded that persons retiring under the SVRS-2004 Scheme would be
      given the benefit of five (5) years of extra service for calculation of
      pension, while actually the same had been specifically excluded. However,
      such endeavour proved to be fruitless and the review application was
E     dismissed on 7.4.2015.
             9. That ought to have put the issue at rest, but the insurance
      companies in their wisdom made a belated attempt to once again urge
      that issue, by seeking to plead that those observations were only obiter
      in nature and were factually contrary to the scheme. This application for
F     modification/clarification was, however, refused to be listed by the
      Registrar as it was found to be a belated endeavour at review. The
      beneficiaries then filed a Miscellaneous Application which was listed
      before the Court, but was later withdrawn.
              10. We have set out the aforesaid controversy because the real
G     substantive ground forming the basis of the plea of the appellants before
      us is that what was recorded in the judgment in the Manojbhai N. Shah
      & Ors case3 amounted to a concession on the part of the insurance
      companies, which concession in turn resulted in a finding against them
      to the effect that, the, insurance companies are bound to give the benefit
      3
H         Supra.
    NATIONAL INSURANCE SPECIAL VOLUNTARY RETIRED/RETIRED           649
EMPLOYEES ASSN. v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]


 of additional five (5) years’ service, as per the 1995 Scheme, even to       A
 those persons who have opted for voluntary retirement under the SVRS-
 2004 Scheme.
        11. The aforesaid controversy, after an initial direction to the
 insurance companies to examine the demands of the retired employees
 substantively, was examined by the learned Single Judge, when the former     B
 came to be rejected by the insurance companies, by the judgment in
 WP(MD) No.19431/2015 and connected matters dated 8.6.2016.In this
 judgement, it was opined that in view of the judgment of the Supreme
 Court in Manojbhai N. Shah &Ors.,4 this benefit of additional five (5)
 years’ service, as per the 1995 Scheme was admissible despite the clear
 terms of clause 6(1)(c) of the SVRS-2004 Scheme. The learned Single          C
 Judge also opined that since clause 6(1)(c) of the SVRS-2004 Scheme
 did not specifically exclude the benefits under para 30(5) of the 1995
 Scheme, there was no reason to deny the same to the beneficiaries of
 the SVRS-2004 Scheme.
        12. The aforesaid judgment was assailed before the learned            D
 Division Bench, which, however, opined to the contrary and dismissed
 the original writ petition filed by the appellants vide judgment dated
 17.7.2017 in WA (MD) Nos.1228-1231/2016. It is this judgment which
 has been assailed before us.
       13. We have examined the impassioned plea made on behalf of            E
 the employees by Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, learned Senior Advocate
 and the defence put up by the insurance companies through Mr. Rakesh
 Dwivedi, Senior Advocate and Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Senior Advocate.
        14. One of the aspects emphasised by learned counsel for the
 appellants was that the financial impact would not be huge, as was sought    F
 to be contended by the insurance companies, as it would be in the range
 of Rs.388 to Rs.1477, per beneficiary, per month. We, however, find
 that this would neither be here nor there, as that cannot be the basis for
 grant or refusal of the relief. The question for consideration is whether
 the beneficiaries under theSVRS-2004 Scheme, which specifically              G
 excludes the benefit of additional five (5) years’ service of the 1995
 Scheme, would still be entitled to claim the said amount contrary to the
 explicit terms. We are of the view that the answer to this question must
 be in the negative.
 4
     Supra.
                                                                              H
650               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A            15. It has to be appreciated that the SVRS-2004 Scheme is
      statutory in character, being a Scheme under Section 17-A of the General
      Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. It would not be
      appropriate to add or subtract terms from the Scheme, which has a
      statutory flavour. There could not have been any concession contrary
      to the terms of the Scheme, and if such a concession was to ensure for
B
      the benefit of the retirees, then it had to go through the process of a
      formal notification. In fact, post the decision in Manojbhai N. Shah
      &Ors.,5 both the parties also understood that there was really no question
      of availing the benefit, contrary to clause 6(1)(c) of the SVRS-2004
      Scheme. This is what resulted in the review application, the clarification
C     and modification application, etc. The rejection of the review application
      filed by the beneficiaries itself shows that post the judgment, clause
      6(1)(c) was once again highlighted before the Bench. Despite this, the
      review application was dismissed, which clearly shows that this fact
      was not important for finally coming to the conclusion that the salary
      revision was not applicable to those who had already retired. Learned
D
      senior counsel for the appellant himself acknowledged that in the absence
      of any specific direction in this behalf, they could not have even filed a
      contempt petition and thus the fresh round of litigation began.
            16. Learned senior counsel for the appellants, however, sought to
      persuade us by referring to the judgment of this Court in State of
E     Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr.6 where, in para 4,
      a question arose qua a concession made in the High Court, while
      contending the matter before this Court. It is in that context that it was
      observed that this Court would not launch into an inquiry as to what
      transpired in the High Court:
F                “4. .........It is simply not done. Public Policy bars us. Judicial
                 decorum restrains us. Matters of judicial record are
                 unquestionable. They are not open to doubt. Judges cannot be
                 dragged into the arena. “Judgments cannot be treated as mere
                 counters in the game of litigation” (Per Lord Atkinson in
G                Somasundaram Chetty v. Subramanian Chetty, AIR 1926 PC
                 136). We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges
                 recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in court. We
                 cannot allow the statement of the judges to be contradicted by
      5
          Supra.
      6
H         (1982) 2 SCC 463
    NATIONAL INSURANCE SPECIAL VOLUNTARY RETIRED/RETIRED           651
EMPLOYEES ASSN. v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]


         statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the       A
         judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or
         admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject.
         The principle is well settled that statements of fact as to what
         transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the court,
         are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict
                                                                                B
         such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks
         that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a
         judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still
         fresh in the minds of the judges, to call attention of the very
         judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement
         made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been          C
         made in error (Per Lord Buckmaster in Madhu Sudan Chowdhri
         v. Chandrabati Chowdhrain, AIR 1917 PC 30). That is the
         only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken,
         the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may
         resile and an Appellate Court may permit him in rare and
                                                                                D
         appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that
         the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law
         and had led to gross injustice; but, he may not call in question the
         very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment.”
       17. The aforesaid paragraph was, once again, extracted with
 approval in Y. Sleebachen & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu through                E
 Superintending Engineer Water Resources Organisation/Public
 Works Department & Anr.7
        18. On the other hand, it was canvassed by the insurance
 companies that there could be no concession against law [Tripura Goods
 Transport Association & Anr. v. Commissioner of Taxes &                        F
 Ors. 8].Learned counsel also referred to New India Assurance
 Company Limited v. Raghuvir Singh Narang & Anr.9 to buttress the
 plea that if there is a scheme which has a statutory character, then there
 could not be any contention which could be permissibly raised, contrary
 to the Scheme. Even qua contractual schemes, if one has availed of the         G
 benefits, it would not be open to raise pleas and seek benefits beyond
 what is stipulated in the Scheme.
 7
   (2015) 5 SCC 747
 8
   (1998) 2 SCC 264 para 9
 9
   (2010) 5 SCC 335
                                                                                H
652             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A            19. The earlier judgments in Bank of India & Ors. v. O.P.
      Swarnakar & Ors.10 And HEC Voluntary Retired Employees Welfare
      Society & Anr. v. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. &Ors., 11
      dealing with voluntary retirement schemes have been taken note of in
      the impugned judgment, to come to the conclusion that the terms of such
      schemes must be strictly followed, and the contract cannot be varied.
B
      We may add here that apparently there are certain observations in paras
      33 and 34 of the impugned order, which may also run contrary to clause
      5(1) of the SVRS-2004 Scheme, insofar as the Division Bench has opined
      that the words “whichever is less” have been excluded from clause 5 of
      the SVRS-2004 Scheme. It may be noted that such is not the case, for
C     clause 5 of the SVRS-2004 Scheme, as extracted above, explicitly
      provides, in clause 5(1), that an employee seeking special voluntary
      retirement, under the Scheme shall be entitled to the lower of the ex-
      gratia amounts as mentioned thereunder. We feel it suffice to clarify
      that what is binding between the parties is the statutory scheme itself, as
      per its terms.
D
             20. We have, thus, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that
      statutory or contractual, such voluntary retirement schemes as the SVRS-
      2004 Scheme have to be strictly adhered to, and the very objective of
      having such Schemes would be defeated, if parts of other Schemes are
      sought to be imported into such voluntary retirement schemes. What is
E     offered by the employer is a package as contained in the Schemes of
      voluntary retirement, and that alone would be admissible.
             21. The issue which arose in Manojbhai N. Shah &Ors.12 Was
      qua the revision of pay, with retrospective effect. That was the only
      issue. That issue was decided against the beneficiaries of the SVRS-
F     2004 Scheme. If there are certain observations made by that Bench
      while deciding so, qua aspects which are not forming the subject matter
      of that dispute, the same cannot be read to amount to grant of relief/
      benefits, contrary to the terms of the Scheme, and that too, in the absence
      of any specific directions.
G           22. The intent of the SVRS-2004 Scheme was made even more
      explicitly clear by clause 8 specifying the general conditions in sub-
      clause(xiv), which reads as under:
      10
         (2003) 2 SCC 721
      11
         (2006) 3 SCC 708
      12
H        Supra.
    NATIONAL INSURANCE SPECIAL VOLUNTARY RETIRED/RETIRED           653
EMPLOYEES ASSN. v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]


         “8. General conditions:                                                A
         xxxx             xxxx             xxxx             xxxx      xxxx
         (xiv) Save as provided in para 5(2) the benefits payable under
         this scheme shall be in full and final settlement of all claims of
         whatsoever nature, whether arising under the regulation or
         otherwise to the employee (or to the nominee in case of death).        B
         An employee who voluntarily retires under this Scheme shall not
         have any claims against the Company for re-employment or
         compensation or employment of any of his or her relative on
         compassionate grounds in the service of the company or for any
         other like benefits.”                                                  C
        23. It is, thus, abundantly clear that nothing more would be given
 than what is stated in the Scheme, and for that matter, nothing less. If
 the employees avail of the benefit of such a Scheme with their eyes
 open, they cannot look here and there, under different schemes, to see
 what other benefits can be achieved by them, by seeking to take advantage      D
 of the more beneficial schemes, while simultaneously enjoying the more
 beneficial aspects of the SVRS-2004 Scheme.
        24. We, thus, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order,
 except with regards to observations made in paras 33and 34 of the
 impugned order, and consequently, the appeals are dismissed leaving the        E
 parties to bear their own costs.
 Ankit Gyan                                                Appeals dismissed.




                                                                                F




                                                                                G




                                                                                H