JAYANTI PRASAD VAJPEI vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~93 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 12th May, 2026 + W.P.(C) 4346/2022 JAYANTI PRASAD VAJPEI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pardeep Gupta, Mr. Parinav Gupta and Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocates. versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Ranjan Verma, Mr. Vivek Malik and Mr. Vivek Sinha, Advocates for R-1 to R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA JUDGMENT SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral): 1. The Petitioner, a retired officer of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, seeks entry into the pension fold under the General Insurance (Employees’) Pension Scheme, 1995,1 as amended by the General Insurance (Employees’) Pension Amendment Scheme, 2019.2 The controversy lies at the intersection of three matters: a resignation accepted in 1996, a subsequent appointment expressly described as a fresh appointment, and a later statutory amendment of 2019 which reopened pension option for a 1 “1995 Scheme” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH W.P.(C) 4346/2022 Page 1 of 27 Signing Date:15.05.2026 20:53:51 defined class of employees. 2. The Petitioner does not dispute that his earlier service stood interrupted by resignation. Nor can he avoid the document dated 20 th November, 1996, by which, after his fresh appointment, he opted not to be governed by the 1995 Pension Scheme. He submits that even on treating his appointment of September 1996 as a fresh appointment, he was still an employee to whom the 1995 Scheme applied. Paragraph 3(4) of the scheme and the very fact that the company required him to fill an option form, according to him, proves that he was within the reach of the 1995 Scheme. His grievance is that when the Central Government, by the 2019 Amendment, reopened the pension option, the ben