SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1224

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.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Ajay Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Narender Sharma, Adv.
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, Advocate, Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, Mr. Chander Narayan Singh, Advocate with Mr. Anshul Attri, Advocate.

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.

Headnote:(A) Insurance Contracts - Pension Schemes - Group Superannuation (DA Linked) Scheme - Execution of scheme and trust deed, coupled with fund transfer and initial pension disbursements, concludes binding contract effective from specified date - Master policy issued later cannot introduce conflicting terms supplanting agreed scheme - Utmost good faith mandates insurer disclose material alterations; non-disclosure and unfair terms render conflicting clauses void ab initio - Doctrine of blue pencil severs offending provisions - Principles of disclosure, good faith, and notice apply rigorously to standard form contracts like insurance policies. (Paras 10, 15-22, 25-29, 31)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Locus Standi - Employer initiating scheme and direct beneficiaries (employees, retirees, families) possess locus to challenge insurer's refusal to disburse pension/family pension under writ proceedings. (Para 23)

(C) Disputed Questions of Fact - Writable if determinable from documents including scheme, trust deed, correspondence, and conduct; no need for oral evidence where public policy issue evident from record. (Paras 16, 30)

(D) Promissory Estoppel - Operates against insurer commencing disbursements and accepting funds per scheme terms prior to master policy, binding it to original agreement. (Para 25)

Facts of the case:
Employer authority, post state repeal of pension scheme, adopted group superannuation scheme with insurer via trust deed after exploring alternatives; funds exceeding twenty crores transferred in 2008-2009, pensions and DA disbursed to retirees from 2004 until stoppage post-2013/2014 citing fund insufficiency and master policy terms issued in 2010. Employees, retirees, families, and employer filed writs challenging insurer's demands and refusals pursuant to court-directed deliberations; single judge quashed insurer's decision directing payments per scheme.

Findings of Court:
Insurer directed to disburse pension, DA, family pension strictly per agreed scheme and trust deed, without additional demands or withholdings; consequential benefits with no future obstructions.

Issues: Whether contract concluded upon scheme/trust deed execution and performance or awaited master policy; locus of petitioners; writ maintainability amid alleged factual disputes; enforceability of master policy terms conflicting with prior agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: Scheme constitutes complete document with effective date, acted upon by parties including fund acceptance and pension payments; master policy supplements, not supplants, prior terms - conflicting provisions unenforceable for breaching good faith, akin to undisclosed exclusion clauses in standard contracts; determinations from documentary record suffice without perversity.

Result: Appeals dismissed; connected writs allowed in terms of prayers.

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




























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top