LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. versus OM PARKASH

Citation: [2024] 11 S.C.R. 2369 · Decided: 13-11-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 2369 : 2024 INSC 870
Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. 
v. 
Om Parkash
(Civil Appeal No(s). 4393 of 2010)
13 November 2024
[Hrishikesh Roy* and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in granting relief to the employee by 
setting aside his termination for abandonment of service despite 
the employee's failure to disclose his subsequent employment 
and the procedural compliance by the employer under Regulation 
39(4)(iii) of the LIC Staff Regulations, 1960.
Headnotes†
Regulation 39(4)(iii), LIC Staff Regulations, 1960 – Abandonment 
of Service – The regulation deems an employee to have 
abandoned service if absent for 90 consecutive days without 
intimation – Employee absented himself without informing the 
employer, and notices were issued to his recorded address – 
The High Court overlooked the Respondent's abandonment 
of service and suppressed subsequent employment. [Para 11]
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Equitable Relief – Relief 
under Article 226 is equitable and requires the petitioner to 
approach the court with clean hands – Employee, during the 
pendency of the dispute, secured employment with the Food 
Corporation of India (FCI) but concealed this fact from the 
court and employer – Suppression of subsequent employment 
disentitled the employee to equitable relief [Paras 10, 12].
Service of Notice – Procedural compliance under Regulation 
39(4)(iii), LIC Staff Regulations, 1960 – Regulation 39(4)
(iii) permits service of notices by registered post to the 
employee’s address in the service record, with deemed 
service if undelivered and affixed on the office notice board – 
* Author
2370
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Notices sent to the employee’s permanent address, with 
postal remarks indicating he had left his job and residence – 
Satisfied procedural requirements – Held that the employer’s 
actions complied with the regulation, and the employee’s  
non-response justified the abandonment finding – The High 
Court’s doubt on notice service was misplaced. [Paras 9, 11]
Held: The High Court erred in granting relief to the employee by 
allowing the Writ Petition and setting aside the termination order, as 
it overlooked that "it was a case of the employee abandoning his 
services without informing his employer about his whereabouts" – 
Treating the employee to have abandoned his service and taking 
appropriate action against him, in terms of the LIC Staff Regulation, 
cannot be faulted, given his absence since 25.09.1995, unanswered 
notices, and subsequent employment with the Food Corporation 
of India on 14.04.1997 – The employee’s suppression of this 
employment in his Writ Petition filed on 05.01.1998 disentitled 
him to equitable relief from the High Court in exercise of powers 
under Article 226 of the Constitution – Accordingly, the impugned 
order is set aside and quashed [Paras 8-13].
List of Acts
Constitution of India; LIC Staff Regulations, 1960.
List of Keywords
Abandonment of service; Unauthorized absence; Equitable relief; 
Suppression of facts.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4393 
of 2010
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.06.2008 of the High Court 
of H.P at Shimla in LPA No. 6 of 2003
Appearances for Parties
Kailash Vasudev, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ekta Choudhary, Divyank Dutt 
Dwivedi, Ms. Jeba Khan, Advs. for the Appellants.
Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., Kunal Chatterjee, Advs. for the Respondent.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
2371
Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. v. Om Parkash
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
1.	
Heard Mr. Kailash Vasudev, learned Senior Counsel appearing for 
the appellant(s). Also heard Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Amicus 
Curiae assisted by Mr. Kunal Chatterjee, learned counsel for the 
respondent. 
2.	
The challenge here to the judgment and order dated 26.06.2008 in the 
LPA No.6/2003 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh whereunder, the 
judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.05.2003 was upheld 
by the Division Bench. Through the said judgment, the termination of 
the respondent ordered by the appellant(s) on 25.06.1996 was found 
to be unsustainable on the ground of not providing due opportunity 
to the delinquent. The learned Single Judge set aside the penalty 
of removal from service granting all consequential benefits to the 
delinquent. The Court however observed that the employers were 
at liberty to proceed to conduct inquiry on

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