LIC OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA AND ANOTHER ETC.

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 837 · Decided: 31-03-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 1 S.C.R. 837 
LIC OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
v. 
KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA AND ANOTHER ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.8959-8962 of2013) 
MARCH31,2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.) 
Life Insurance Corporation Act 1956 - ss. 21, 48 - Life 
Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 
- r. 37, 55, Appendix IV para 3A - Pensionary benefits - Resolution 
passed by the Board to the effect for Amendment to LIC of India 
(Employees) Pension Rules, 1995-Upgrading of Basic Pension in 
respect of retirees prior to 01.08.1997 - Corporation sought 
amendment to the 1995 Rules - Non-execution of the Resolution by 
the Corporation - Writ petitions - Single Judge and Division Bench 
of the High Court on the basis of the concession given by the counsel 
for the Union of India, directed the Corporation to take a decision 
for implementation of the resolution passed by the Bar.Yd and the 
Corporation cannot provide different criteria for grant of dearness 
allowance to the existing pensioners based on cut-off date i.e. 
31. 7.1997 - On appeal, held: In the absence of a Rule, no benefit 
can be granted on the basis of the resolution passed by the 
Corporation - High Court could not have held to the contrary on 
the basis of the concession given by the counsel for the Union bf 
India - Resolution could not become operative unless it was 
conferred the status of a rule as provided u/s. 48 - Orders passed 
by the High Courts of Rajasthan, Delhi and Punjab & Haryana set 
aside and the writ petitions transferred from the High Courts of 
Rajasthan and Punjab & Haryana to the High Court of Delhi, which 
would decide the constitutional validity of Para 3A of the Appendix 
to the Rules - Corporation to pay 40% as per Para 3A of the 
Appendix to each of the employees. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Rule 55 of the Life Insurance Corporation of 
India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 does not confer power 
on the Chairman of the Corporation to issue any instructions that 
can travel beyond the rules. In terms of Rule 55, he has been 
837 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
838 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] I S.C.R. 
authorized to issue instructions which are necessary and 
expedient for the implementation of the rule• The Board had 
passed the resolution. The Board can pass ~ 1·lsolution and the 
Chairman can be the head of the Board, b.~t it does not authorize 
the Board to take a decision with regard to certain matters which 
are within the domain of the rule making authority. On a perusal 
of Section 48, it is clear as crystal that conferment of benefit, 
either pension or anything ancillary thereto has to be conferred 
by the rules and the rule as prescribed under Section 48 of the 
Act is to be tabled before the Parliament. In the absence of a 
rule, no benefit can be granted on the basis of the resolution 
passed by the Corporation. This being the legal position, the High 
Court could not have held to the contrary on the basis of the 
concession given by the counsel for the Uuiou of India. [Para 15] 
[851-D-F) 
1.2 There are two categories of employees, namely, the 
employees who have retired prior to the cut-off date i.e. 1st 
August, 1997, as a consequence of which they are not getting the 
benefit of dearness relief, and the employees who have retired 
after the said date but are not extended the benefit of dearness 
relief despite subsequent pay revisions. The quantum of pension 
is affected. [Para 22] [853-G-H] 
1.3 Regard being had to the piquant situation, the orders 
passed by the High Courts of Rajasthan, Delhi and Punjab & 
Haryana at Chandigarh are set aside and the writ petitions are 
transferred from the High Courts of Rajasthan and Punjab & 
Haryana to the High Court of Delhi, which will decide the 
constitutional validity of Para 3A of the Appendix to the Rules, 
and also deal with the cases of the persons, who have retired 
after the cut-off date. However, it is clarified that no opinion is 
expressed on the merits of the case, except that the resolution 
could not beco'!le operative unless it was conferred the status of 
a rule as provided under Section 48 of the Act. [Para 23] [854-A-
C] 
1.4 The pleadings are not adequate as it should have been 
while assailing a constitutional validity of a provision as such the 
matter is remanded back. It is well settled in law that he who 
assails the constitutional validity of a statutory provision or a rule, 
LIC OF INDIA v. KRISHNA M

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