2025 HHC 31638
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, SUSHIL KUKREJA, JJ.
Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Rajesh Kumar Thakur & Ors. – Respondents
LPA Nos. 45 to 48 of 2019 with CWP No. 2776 of 2022 & CWPOA No. 6554 of 2020
Decided On : 15-09-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellants : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Narender Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tejasvi Dogra and Ms. Bhanvi Negi, Advocates, Mr. Anup Rattan A.G. with Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Addl. A.G., Mr. Chander Narayan Singh, Advocate and Mr. Anshul Gandhi, Adv., Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Janesh Gupta, Adv., Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Raman Jamalta, Adv., Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raman Jamalta, Adv., Mr. Chander Narayan Singh, Advocate with Mr. Anshul Attri, Adv.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. connected matters disposed together on common questions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. himuda adopted lic da-linked pension scheme via trust. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. single judge upheld scheme over lic objections. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. lic contends no locus, un-concluded contract, estoppel. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. utmost good faith mandates insurer disclosure in contracts. (Para 22) |
| 6. employees and employer have locus against lic. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 7. scheme terms binding; conflicting master policy unenforceable. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 8. uphold judgment; direct pension per agreed scheme. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
These matters, for involvement of common question of law and facts, to be decided on the basis of common documents, are being decided together.
2. LPA Nos. 45 to 48 of 2019 have been preferred by Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short the ‘LIC’) against the common judgment dated 25.04.2019, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1147 of 2016, titled as Raj Kumar Thakur & Ors. vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.; CWP No. 1439 of 2016, titled as Devender Kumar Tandon & Ors. vs. Himachal Pradesh Urban Development Authority & Ors.; CWP No. 3134 of 2016, titled as H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority VS. LIC of India & Anr.; and CWP No. 2007 of 2017, titled as Ashwani Kumar Kalta & Ors. vs. Himachal Pradesh Housing & Urban Development Authority & Ors., whereby decision taken in pursuance to order dated 06.10.2015, passed by this High Court in CWP No. 8821 of 2014 and 14 other connected writ petitions, in the meeting dated 23.11.2015, issued on 18.12.2015 (Annexure P-13 of CWP No. 1147 of 2016) by LIC of India, Divisional Office Kasumpti, has been quashed and set aside and LIC has been directed to pay pension and DA to the retirees of Himachal Pradesh Urban Development Authority (for short the ‘HIMUDA’), as per the Scheme with further direction not to withhold any amount of pension and DA in future payable to the present and prospective retirees, and LIC has also been restrained from raising any illegal demand for paying any additional amount other than which was mutually agreed in accordance with Scheme (Annexure P-8 of CWP No. 1147 of 2016), with observation that agreed amount, admittedly, already stands paid to the LIC.
3. CWP No. 2776 of 2022 has been preferred by wife of deceased employee of the HIMUDA, to whom family pension has not been disbursed despite submitting all requisite documents, seeking directions to pay the same as per Pension Scheme.
4. CWPOA No. 6554 of 2020 has also been filed by wife of deceased employee of HIMUDA, seeking directions to release family pension alongwith consequential benefits as per Pension Scheme.
5. Serving as well as retired employees of HIMUDA had approached the Court by filing CWP Nos. 1147 of 2016, 1439 of 2016 and 2007 of 2017, challenging the act of LIC whereby LIC had refused to pay pension/family pension to the petitioners or families of the deceased employees of HIMUDA, who had retired or died after April, 2015, by laying challenge to the consideration order passed by LIC in its proceedings dated 23.11.2025 (Annexure P-13 referred supra) in pursuant to orders passed by this High Court in earlier writ petitions filed by some of employees of HIMUDA bearing CWP No. 8821 of 2014 alongwith connected writ petitions.
6. CWP No. 3134 of 2016 was filed by HIMUDA being employer, seeking directions to the LIC, (a) to pay pension and upto date DA to the retirees of HIMUDA as per Scheme without any delay and, (b) not to withhold any amount of pension and DA in future payable to the retirees and prospective retirees, (c) to pay amount of pension and upto date DA from the date of wrong and illegal stoppage with interest @ 18% per annum till the date of payment, (d) to restrain the LIC from raising illegal demand for additional amount not payable under the scheme and (e) not to insist the applica
Bennet Coleman & Co. vs. Punya Priya Das Gupta
B. L. Sreedhar & Ors vs. K. M. Munireddy (Dead) and Ors.
Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba & Ors.
Sasadhar Chakravarty & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal
Vikram Greentech India Ltd. & Anr. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
National Textile Corporation (M.P.) Ltd. vs. M. R. Jadhav
PSA Mumbai Investments Pte. Ltd. vs. Board of Trustees of the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust & Anr.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M.K.J. Corporation
Modern Insulators Ltd. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Beed District Central Coop. Bank Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Bharat Watch Co. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Union of India & Ors vs. N. Murugesan & Ors.
Shivram Chandra Jagarnath Cold Storage vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Manmohan Nanda vs. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Texco Marketing Private Ltd vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Texco Marketing Private Ltd. vs. Tata AIR General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
Agreed pension scheme and trust deed bind insurer upon fund receipt and performance; subsequent master policy's conflicting terms void for lacking good faith disclosure, severed by blue pencil rule.
Insurer liable for compensation and 12% interest to contractor's employee listed in policy schedule despite general exclusion clause not disclosed therein; principal employer liable under contracting....
1) Fundamental principle of insurance law that utmost good faith must be observed by the contracting parties and good faith forbids either party from non-disclosure of the facts which the parties kno....
Insured is not entitled to compensation when on facts it is proved that he was intoxicated and that his death was due to intoxication.
Point of Law : There is no good ground to interfere in the orders impugned.
An insurance policy lapses if the premium is not paid within the grace period; revivals after the insured's death are impermissible under contract terms.
The duty of the proposer to disclose all material facts in the proposal form and the materiality of the non-disclosed information for the assessment of risk in insurance contracts.
Exclusion clauses in insurance contracts are binding unless proven unconscionable or contrary to public policy, reaffirming the validity of such clauses in commercial contracts.
Suppression of material facts by an insured can render an insurance claim voidable, impacting the insurer's liability.
A lapsed insurance policy cannot be revived post-death, and the Insurance Ombudsman lacks authority to bypass contract terms based on equity.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.