ASGER IBRAHIMAMIN versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

Citation: [2015] 9 S.C.R. 865 · Decided: 12-10-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 9 S.C.R. 865 
ASGER IBRAHIMAMIN 
v. 
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA 
(Civil Appeal No. 10251 of 2014) 
OCTOBER 12, 2015 
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE,JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
B 
Pension - Entitlement of - Employee resigned on C 
personal grounds after completing 23 years 7 months of 
service - After attaining 50 years of age -
Thereafter 
employer-Corporation notified Life Insurance Corporation of 
India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 - The Rules were 0 
given retrospective effect - Employee sought for benefit of 
pension as per 1995 Rules - Denial of claim by the employer 
as well as the courts below- On appeal, held: In view of r. 3 of 
Chapter II of Pension Rules, it is clear that the Rules are 
applicable to the employee in question - None of the E 
provisions of the Rules and Regulations by which the 
employee was regulated at the relevant time, provided for 
voluntary retirement - Rule 31 of the 1995 Rules (which 
provides for pension on voluntary retirement) when 
juxtaposed to the facts of the present case, makes it obvious F 
that essential components of r. 31 stand substantially fulfilled 
in the present case - The employee ought not be deprived 
of pension benefits merely because he styled his termination 
of services as 'resignation' or because there was no provision 
for voluntary retirement at the relevant time - Life Insurance G 
Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995- rr. 
3 and 31 - Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) 
Regulations, 1960 - reg. 18. 
865 
H 
866 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
'Resignation' and 'Retirement' -
Distinction between-
discussed. 
Delay!Laches - In claiming pension - Held: in cases 
of continuing or successive wrongs, delay and /aches or 
s limitation will not thwart the claim so long as the claim, if 
allowed, does not have any adverse repercussions on the 
settled third party rights- The claims for pension recurs from 
month to month and would not get extinguished on application 
of Jaw of prescription- In case of recurring/successive wrongs 
C the consequential reliefs relating to arrears normally should 
be restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of 
filing the case - Limitation. 
Legislation - Beneficial legislation - Interpretation of-
D Held: The employer should construe the provisions of a 
beneficial legislation in a way that extends the benefit to its 
employees, instead of curtailing it- Interpretation of Statutes. 
Interpretation of Statutes -
Pension Rules -
E Interpretation of- Held: The objective of the Pension Rules 
is to extend benefits to a class of people to tide over the crisis 
and vicissitudes of old age - In case of inconsistencies 
between the statutory provisions and the avowed objective 
of the State so as to discriminate between the beneficiaries 
F within the class, the ends of justice obligates the court to 
palliate the differences between the two and reconcile them 
as far as possible - The court should not go by the letter of 
the Pension Rules and should go by the laudatory spirit of 
statutory provisions and fundamental rights u!Art. 14 of the 
G Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 -Art. 14. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The respondent-Corporation has the 
H power to compulsory retire an employee who has 
attained the age of 50 years, if in its opinion, such 
ASGER IBRAHIMAMIN v. LIFE INSURANCE 
867 
CORPORATION OF INDIA 
decision is in the interests of the Corporation; and the A 
employee may seek permission to retire upon completion 
of 55 years of age and after rendering 25 years of service. 
This very position finds reiteration in Rule 31 of the 
Pension Rules under the epithet 'voluntary retirement'. 
[Para 5] [875-G-H] 
B 
1.2 'Resignation' and 'retirement' have disparate 
connotations; that an employee can 'resign' at any time 
but, in contradistinction, can 'retire' only on completion 
of the prescribed period of qualifying service and in C 
consonance with extant Rules and Regulations. [Para 
6] [877 -B-C] 
1.3 The provisions covered by the definition of 
"retirement", which do not entail forfeiture of service, are o 
sub-regulation (1 ), sub-regulation (2), and sub-regulation 
(3) of Regulation 19 of the Life Insurance Corporation of 
India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 and Rule 14 of the Life 
Insurance Corporation of India Class Ill and Class IV 
Employees (Revision of Terms and Conditions of E 
Service) Rules, 1985. None of these provisions 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.