SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. & ORS. versus SHREE LAL MEENA

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 391 · Decided: 15-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Reference answered

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
391
SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE
CORPORATION OF INDIA  LTD. & ORS.
v.
           SHREE LAL MEENA
     (Civil Appeal No.14739 of 2015)
    MARCH 15, 2019
[RANJAN GOGOI, CJI, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND
K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960
– Regn. 18 – Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees)
Pension Rules, 1995 – rr. 3(1)(a) and 23 – Respondent tendered a
letter of resignation on 14.7.1990 – Resignation was accepted by
the appellant-LIC – There was no scheme or provision for
voluntary retirement applicable to respondent during this period of
time – More than 5 years later, Pension Rules, 1995 were brought
into force and made applicable to all the employees who were in
service of the LIC on or after 1.1.1986, but had retired before
1.11.1993 – Respondent sought application of the Pension Rules –
Pursuant thereto, the respondent filed writ petition – High Court
decided in his favour – On appeal, held: Pension Rules show that
the resignation entails forfeiture of the entire post service and
consequently, would not qualify for pensionary benefits – In the
instant case, on the relevant date respondent took a conscious
decision to dis-engage himself from the services of the appellant,
on the terms and conditions as prevalent on that date – As to what
happened five years hence, would have no bearing on any benefit,
which can accrue to such employee as a respondent except to the
extent which is specifically made applicable to him – Also, r.3(1)(a)
has used a clear and unequivocal expression ‘retired’ and it has
not used any alternative expression, for determination of the
relationship of employer-employees, like ‘resignation’ – When the
pension Rules are applicable and an employee resigns, the
consequences are forfeiture of service, u/r.23 of the Pension Rules
– Any attempt to apply the Pension Rules to the respondent would
be self-defeating argument – Thus, impugned orders unsustainable.
 391
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 391
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
392
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  5 S.C.R.
General Insurance (Termination, Superannuation and
Retirement of Officers and Development Staff) Scheme, 1976 – Cl.
4(4A) – General Insurance (Employees’) Pension Scheme, 1995 –
Appellant tendered his resignation on 1.10.1993, however, termed
it as ‘premature retirement’ – Letter of resignation was accepted –
After three years of the resignation, an amendment was made to the
1976 Scheme by inserting Cl.4(4A), introducing the concept of
Voluntary Retirement Scheme on 1.11.1996 –  This clause was made
retrospectively applicable from 1.11.1993 – The object was to have
consonance with the ‘1995 scheme’ – Appellant sought pension on
the basis of the 1995 scheme resting his case on Sheel Kumar Jain v.
New India Assurance Company Limited – Writ petition filed by
appellant, was rejected by the High Court – On appeal, held: The
reasoning of the Division Bench of High Court was that the case of
the appellant was of resignation and not of voluntary retirement –
The opinion of the Division Bench of High Court was also based
on a relevant fact, that the condition in terms of Cl.4(4A) required
completion of 55 years of age, while the appellant was not of 55
years of age on the date of his resignation or its acceptance –
Besides, there is a clause of forfeiture of service in case of
resignation – Appellant did not fulfill the pre-requisites to avail the
benefits of the new pension scheme – Mere categorisation by the
appellant himself of his resignation as ‘premature retirement’ was
not sufficient – Appellant did not have the requisite age when he
resigned even were the 1976 scheme to be made applicable – Apart
from that, the appellant remained silent for years together and that
Supreme Court, taking a particular view subsequently, in Sheel
Kumar Jain, would not entitle state claims to be raised on this
behalf, like that of appellant – Thus, relief sought by the appellant
rejected.
Andhra Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 –
Andhra Bank officers’ Service Regulations, 1982 – Appellants were
employees of the respondent-Bank, viz., Andhra Bank, who resigned
from service during the window period of 1991 and 1993 –
Thereafter, Pension Regulations, 1995 were introduced and it was
made applicable for employees, who retired on or after 01.01.1986
but before 01.11.1993 – Appellants sought benefit of these pension
Regulations – Writ petition by appellants – High Court rejected the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
393
wri

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