JENNIFER CORREYA vs THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER

2026:MHC:4278
WP No. 29403 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 29403 of 2023
CNR:{HCMA011818822023}
and
WMP No. 29035 of 2023
Jennifer Correya
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Divisional Manager
National Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Officer No. IV,
169, Anna Salai, 2nd Floor,
Opp. to Spensers Plaza,
Chennai - 600 002.
2. National Insurance Company Limited,
Represented by Chairman cum
Managing Director,
HO. No.3,
Middleton Street,
Kolkata -700 071.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the
order of the 1st respondent made in proceedings dated 31.07.2019, to quash the
same and to consequently direct the respondents to take the service of the
petitioner before accepting her Voluntary Retirement from service as the
qualifying service of 20 years and to accord pension and pensionary benefits
including arrears thereto.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.L.Chandrakumar
__________
Page1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 12:04:45 pm )

2026:MHC:4278
WP No. 29403 of 2023
For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Raghunathan
for M/s. T.S.Gopalan & Co
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the first
respondent in the proceedings dated 31.07.2019, quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to count the petitioner's service rendered
prior to the acceptance of her application for voluntary retirement as qualifying
service of 20 years and to sanction pension and other pensionary benefits,
including arrears thereof.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner
was initially appointed in the respondent Department on 12.03.1984 under the
disability quota. While so, the petitioner submitted an application seeking
voluntary retirement from service on 05.03.2004. However, though the
petitioner's request for voluntary retirement was accepted, her claim for pension
was rejected on the ground that she had not completed 20 years of qualifying
service. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, as on
the date of submission of the application for voluntary retirement, the petitioner
was short of completing 20 years of service by only six days. In this regard, the
learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
__________
Page2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 12:04:45 pm )

2026:MHC:4278
WP No. 29403 of 2023
Supreme Court in State Bank of Patiala v. Pritam Singh Bedi and Others ,
reported in AIR 2014 SC 2714, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, if
the broken period of service exceeds six months, it shall be treated as one year.
Hence, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, since
the petitioner was short of completing 20 years of qualifying service by only six
days, she is entitled to pension.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would stoutly
oppose the aforesaid contention and submit that, as per the Administrative
Instructions for Implementation of the Provisions of the General Insurance
(Employees') Pension Amendment Scheme, 2019, dated 17.05.2019, Clause 2.3
provides an option for special voluntary retirement under the General Insurance
Officers' Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004, to employees who retired
prior to 28.06.1995, subject to the mandatory requirement of completing 20
years of qualifying service. In the case in hand, since the petitioner has not
completed the minimum qualifying service of 20 years, she is not entitled to
pension.
3.1. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the respondents would further
submit that, even if this Court arrives at the conclusion that the petitioner is
eligible for pension, the terms and conditions stipulated under Clause 5.1 of the
aforesaid Scheme would have to be complied with by the petitioner. In support
__________
Page3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 12:04:45 pm )

2026:MHC:4278
WP No. 29403 of 2023
of this contention, the learned counsel for the respondents would rely upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India and Others v.
Tara Chand , reported in (2020) 18 SCC 452, and submit that the schemes and
benefits must be implemented in accordance with the applicable rules and that
no exception can be made in favour of any individual. The learned counsel
would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.
Roadways Retired Officials & Officers Association v. State of U.P. , reported in
(2024) 9 SCC 331, wherein the general principles governing pension were
discussed and it was held that pension is not a bounty. He would further submit
that, since the petitioner has not completed 20 years of qualifying service, she is
not eligible for pension. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on
record.
5. The main contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner
is that the petitioner has not completed 20 years of qualifying service by only
six days. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Pritam Singh Bedi's case (cited supra). For ready reference,
this Court deems it appropriate to extract paragraphs 22 to 24 of the said
judgment as follows:-
__________
Page4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 12:04:45 pm )

2026:MHC:4278
WP No. 29403 of 2023
“22. The respondents completed more than 10 years of
service in the Bank on the date of retirement; therefore, they
fulfil the requirement of qualifying service as per Regulation 14.
23. It has not been disputed by the appellant Bank that
the respondents in all the appeals have completed much more
than 19 years 6 months of service in the Bank. For example,
Respondent 1, Prakash Chand in CA No. 173 of 2010 had
joined the Bank on 4-5-1981 and was relieved on 31-3-2001.
Thus, he had completed 19 years, 10 months and 28 days of
qualifying service on the date of relieving from service.
24. Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations, 1995
provides that if broken period is more than six months, it shall
be treated as one year. Therefore, all the respondent-writ
petitioners having completed more than 19 years and 6 months
of service in the Bank, they are to be treated to have completed
20 years of service. The aforesaid question was neither raised
nor decided in Bank of Baroda [Bank of Baroda v. Ganpat
Singh Deora, (2009) 3 SCC 217 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 622] or
Bank of India [Bank of India v. K. Mohandas, (2009) 5 SCC
313 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 524 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 32].”
6. In view of the aforesaid ratio, if the broken period of service exceeds
six months, it shall be treated as one year. In the case in hand, the petitioner was
short of completing 20 years of qualifying service by only six days. Therefore,
this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner satisfies the eligibility criteria to
opt for special voluntary retirement under the General Insurance Officers'
Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004.
__________
Page5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 12:04:45 pm )

2026:MHC:4278
WP No. 29403 of 2023
7. Though the learned counsel for the respondents would contend, relying
upon the judgment in Tara Chand's case (cited supra), that no special privilege
can be extended to an individual and that the rules must be strictly adhered to,
this Court is of the view that, even while adhering to the rules stricto sensu , and
by applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pritam Singh
Bedi's case (cited supra), the petitioner would fall within the category of
employees having the minimum qualifying service of 20 years.
8. In such circumstances, the petitioner would be entitled to opt for
special voluntary retirement in accordance with the Administrative Instructions
for Implementation of the Provisions of the General Insurance (Employees')
Pension Amendment Scheme, 2019, subject to the applicable terms and
conditions. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the rejection of the
petitioner's claim for pension by the respondents, vide the impugned order dated
31.07.2019, is liable to be interfered with.
9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondents would further
submit that, since the impugned order was passed in the year 2019, there is a
delay in filing the present Writ Petition. However, having regard to the factual
circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioner was appointed
under the disability quota and retired from service on account of her physical
__________
Page6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 12:04:45 pm )

2026:MHC:4278
WP No. 29403 of 2023
condition, this Court does not find any reason to deny the relief sought for on
the ground of delay.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated
31.07.2019 is set aside. The first respondent is directed to sanction pension to
the petitioner under the special voluntary retirement scheme, subject to the
terms and conditions and options stipulated under Clause 5.1 of the
Administrative Instructions for Implementation of the Provisions of the General
Insurance (Employees') Pension Amendment Scheme, 2019. The first
respondent is further directed to complete the aforesaid exercise within a period
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
15-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KV
__________
Page7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 12:04:45 pm )

2026:MHC:4278
WP No. 29403 of 2023
To
1. The Divisional Manager
National Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Officer No. IV,
169, Anna Salai, 2nd Floor,
Opp. to Spensers Plaza,
Chennai - 600 002.
2. National Insurance Company Limited,
Represented by Chairman cum
Managing Director,
HO. No.3,
Middleton Street,
Kolkata -700 071.
__________
Page8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 12:04:45 pm )

2026:MHC:4278
WP No. 29403 of 2023
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KV
WP No. 29403 of 2023
15-10-2026
__________
Page9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 12:04:45 pm )