LexSH. O.K. UDAYASANKARAN AND ORS. ETC versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
)
'
I
~
! '
l.
------
SH. O.K. UDAYASANKARAN AND ORS. ETC ..
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ·
MARCH 27, 1996
A.M. AHMADI, CJ, SUJATA V. MANOHAR
. AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.)
.
. . .
.
-
.
S en•ice Law :
A
B
Life J11szrrance Corporation-Pay faation of ex~sen•iceme11 re-employed C
prior to 1.1.1988-Drawing salary after deduction of pe11sion from defe11ce
services-Compensatory scheme framed for notional fitmelll on exercise of
option w.e.f. U.1988-Whether available for Appellants who joi11ed after
1.1.1988-Drawing'salary in addition to pensio11from defence services-Held,
No.-Tl1{ Option ha~ to be exercised 011/y by existillg ex-serviceme11.
D
The Life lnsuratice C~rporation of India framed a scheme in 1989 for
liiation of pay of .ex-servicemen who were re-employed in .the. Corporation.
As per para 3.7 of the ~cheme if an ex-servicemen was re-employed within
three years after discharge from Defence Services then his last dralln E
salary in th~ Defence Servicesuill be compared to his starting saiary on (he
date of his re-implormerit so as t~ pr~iect his last drawn salary. As per
P~ra_ 3.s. of .·the .inSiru~ti~ns if the ex-seniceman is re-employe_d after a
pe~iod of th~ee y~a..S aft~r disch~rge, his la~t dr.iwn salary in defence
s~l"'liC~ ;.;,,jj<I be c;;~pa~ed with hi~ salary that h~ ,;.ould have drawn if he
had bee.; i~m~iat~iy ~mployed and ti1e salary wl;ich the ex-servicem~n F
i.m get' o,; the act~at date of his ;:.~mplo).,;.ent by the Corporati~n is
.;~tionally worked out. The h~strnction also provided that \he ex-ser,
Vi~~~3D '!iii' get the behefii-~r ~n.Y ~e~ision ~r pay scal~s in lhe int~,rr~gnll~.
Howeve~, the ni~e.;t.wouid be notionally effected and acitial benefit was '"
''.'•'' ·-..
.
f
-
'
-
'•
-.
'
.
;
-.-
.
•
.
-
-
-;
''
be given onlyfro1111.l.1988. The fitment under Para 3.8 was applicable only
. i~ thus~ who w~i-e employed p~lor to' 1.1.19ss an·d arter exercising an optio'n. G
Th,• ~ppellant, ":ho were ex;servlcemen who were 're-employed '~fter
1.1.1988 challenged the applicability of the instructions. The appellants
coniended that there was no basis forthe cut·off date and th~t the o.ptio'n-
cu~-c.;nsent letters for such a fit~e.;t was also obtained from ex~~er·
•
vi~me~ employ~d arier 1.1.1988. The resp~ndent's stated that .~~lier the H
. ·-
.
,.
.
-
-
.. '.,.
955
956
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996) 3 S.C.R.
A salary of .ex-servicemen wherever re-employed in Government or Public
Service, the component of pension was deducted and adjusted in the salary
on re-employment; that the corporation decided to allow the ex-servicemen
who ,joined after 1.1.1988 to retain their pension and they were getting
salary in addition to the pension; that since this benefit was not available
to those were re-employed prior to 1.1.1988, it was decided to compensate
B them by notional fitinent as per para 3.8 of the instructions; that they did
not obtain any consent letters from appellants and that by mistake they had
allowed three appellants the benefit of para 3.8 and that they had to correct
this mistake by recalculating their salary. Dismissing the Appeals and Writ
Petition, this Court
c
D
HELD : 1. Para 6 of the inst~uctions clearly provides that the
option-cum-consent letters has to be obtained from each existing ex-ser-
viceman employee opting fitment of salary as per the instruction. It is to
be exercised only by existing ex-servicemen employees of Life Insurance
Corporation. (963-B)
2. The High Court was right in rejecting the contentions of the
appellants. There Is no reason to interfere with the findings given by the
High Co.urt. [963-E·F)
E
3. The respondents ore entitled to reduce the pay of the appellants
granted to them erroneously, In the light of the instructions. (963-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 5255 of 1996 Etc.'
F ·
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.6.91 of the Kerala High Court
in W.A No. 451 of 1991.
·Dr. RajeeC Dhavan, H.N. Salve, G.L. Sanghi, V.C.Mahajan, Rakesh
Luthra, Gopal Singh, .KV. Mohan, Ajay Singh, H.K. Chaturvedi, H.P.
G Sharma, S. Markandeya, Pravir Choudhary, Ms. Indira Sawahney and S.'N.
Terdol for the appeari~g parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. Leave granted in .S.L.P. (C) No.
H 2158 of 1992.
,J
•
.,
O.K. UDAYASANKARANv. U.0.1.
957
The appellants, are the employees .of the L!fe lrisuran~e Corporation A
of IndiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.