Development staff of General insurance companies who have opted for Pension but denied Pension on SVRS for not completing 20 years of service on the date of SVRS.

The affected retired Dev staffs are requested to file the case by challenging relevant Para 11 B (ii)  of  Instructions issued dated 6^th Feb 2003 Subsequent to Dev Staff SVRS scheme Dated 2^nd Jan 2003  instead of filing Petition relying on the case already decided by the court in favor of Admin Staff.

The SVRS scheme of both is different & the former is not a substitute for the later. The Admin cases can be mentioned as a second line of defense, otherwise it will have the same fate of ill-fated case of Arun Oswal Vs Oriental Insurance Company in DHC WP(C) 6408/2014, Please note that the famous judgment in National Insurance Company Vs  Kirpal Singh in SC CA 256/2014 is  an admin staff case, ofcousrse it can be quoted as a second line of defence but emphasis should be on challenging Para 11B (II)  of instructions issued dated 6 Feb 2003 Subsequent to development SVRS scheme dated 2nd  Jan 2003.

 This has clearly mentioned by by Supreme court while dismissing Arun Oswal case who was a Dev Staff. The Court has indirectly indicated that if Para 11B (II) of the instructions dated 6^th Feb 2003 Subsequent to Dev SVRS Scheme dated 2^nd Jan 2003  had been challenged instead of challenging on the basis of a case won by others having different scheme. Hence  Please bring this matter o the notice your advocate to avoid a similar fate as that of Arun Oswal case.

The Relevant Portion of Judgement in the Arun Oswal Vs Oriental Isurance Co Ltd.in DHC WP(C) 6408/2014 is given below.

“It has not been pointed out that such instructions were issued pursuant to SVRS 2004, which was considered by Supreme Court in National Insurance Co Ltd Vs Kirpal Singh. The instructions being the distinguishing feature, the judgment of the Supreme Court being peculiar to SVRS 2004 can not be construed as a judgment in rem. The petitioner having not challenged the communication dated oct 29^th 2003 and has acquiesced in to the said order, that apart, the legality of Para 11 B (ii) of the instructions dated 6^th Feb 2003, has not been challenged, the petitioner not entitled to any relief. The Petition is dismissed.”