Page 57 - The Insurance Times November 2024

order to choose a surveyor/loss assessor, the State About the case
Commission remitted the case back to the District The Supreme Court has noted that a government servant
Commission. But once more, the District Commission receives a pension in lieu of their devoted service when
rejected the complaint. In order to challenge the awarding a pension to a government employee under the
complaint's dismissal, the complainant went to the State Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022. Furthermore,
Commission. for the person or people looking for government work,
pensions are frequently a major factor.
The State Commission stated that the Complainant's
residence sustained considerable damage in June 2013 as a The appellant in this case worked for the government. He
result of floods, land erosion, and slides in District Kinnaur. began his career in the Gandhinagar Postal Division as a
The insurance company failed to hire a surveyor in a timely postal assistant for the federal government. His selection
manner, causing the damage to occur on multiple occasions for the Senior Assistant position in the Gujarati
and making it impossible to provide an accurate time of government's Ministry of Health and Medical Services
claim notification. The State Commission found that the occurred during his job. Importantly, in order to take part
insurance firm was accountable for deficiency in service and in the selection process, the appellant had also secured a
unfair trade practice since it was unlawful to reject the claim No-Objection Certificate. Thus, the Appellant quit to take
on the basis of delayed notice, given the facts and the latter position after working as a postal assistant for
circumstances. As a result, the State Commission rejected around ten years.
the District Commission's ruling.The State Commission then
ordered the insurance provider to give the complainant a Additionally, the appellant worked as a senior assistant for
total of Rs. 7,90,000/-. Additionally, the Complainant was 23 years starting on August 18, 1993.When the State
to get an extra payment of Rs. 50,000/-as litigation costs. government compensated the Appellant exclusively for his
work as a Senior Assistant-rather than as a Postal Assistant-
the disagreement started. The High Court dismissed the
"Pension Plan Needs To Be Read Broadly": challenge to this suit. Hence, the current appeal. It is crucial
Supreme Court Approves Central to note Rule 25(ix) of the aforementioned Pension Rules
Government Service To Be Included In before proceeding. It states that "services rendered under
Central Government/Central Government Autonomous
Gujarat Government Employees Pension. bodies having pension scheme by a Government employee
Case Title: VINOD KANJIBHAI BHAGORA vs. THE who is absorbed in Government" qualifies as service
performed by a government employee.
STATE OF GUJARAT., Diary No.- 23474 - 2018
The appellant contended that after working for the federal
Summary
government, he was absorbed by the state government. He
The Supreme Court has ruled that a government servant must therefore receive pension benefits in accordance with
receives a pension in lieu of their devoted service when the aforementioned rule. Contrarily, the Respondent State
awarding a pension to a government employee under the argued that the Appellant had no right to pursue the
Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022. The appellant, Pension Rules' benefits.The Appellant, a former employee
a former employee of the federal government, worked for of the central government, would be eligible for the benefit
the Gujarati government's Ministry of Health and Medical if (i) the employment had an underlying pension scheme and
Services and was selected for the Senior Assistant position. (ii) the State Government absorbed him, the Court remarked
The State government compensated the appellant
after reviewing the relevant provision.
exclusively for his work as a Senior Assistant, leading to a
disagreement. The Supreme Court ruled that the appellant Taking this as a clue, the Court noted that there was no
would be eligible for the pension benefits if the employment doubt about the pension plan at the Appellant's previous
had an underlying pension scheme and the State job. The Court noted that the interpretation of the pension
Government absorbed him. The Court concluded that the scheme should not be restricted and restrictive when
State Government implicitly absorbed the appellant, and addressing the question of whether the State Government
the High Court erred in interpreting Rule 25(ix) of the absorbed the Appellant. It is well-established that the
Pension Rules, unfairly depriving the appellant of their right pension plan or plans offered by the State Government are
to have their time spent working for the Central a component of advantageous legislation that has been
Government included in their "qualifying service." The Court delegated, and as such, they should be interpreted broadly
ordered the State to recalculate pension benefits and pay as long as it doesn't conflict with the Pension Rules' explicit
any arrears in line with the new figures. provisions.

50 November 2024 The Insurance Times