Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J
Manmood Shankar – Appellant
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation Of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of procedural history and dispute regarding qualifying service after reinstatement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments concerning the impact of back wage denial on continuity of service. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. reinstatement implies continuous service for pension computation unless explicitly restricted by law. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
O R D E R
07.01.2026
1. This petition, inter alia, seeks a direction to the Respondent to release the Petitioner’s retiral benefits, including pension, leave encashment, gratuity and compassionate allowance. However, during hearing the controversy has narrowed. The Petitioner does not seek any arrears of salary for the period he remained out of service pursuant to the dismissal order dated 23rd July, 2016. The challenge is confined to the manner in which the Respondent has computed “qualifying service” for pensionary benefits, by excluding the intervening period between dismissal and reinstatement and thereby treating the Petitioner as having only 28 years of qualifying service, as against the Petitioner’s case that the qualifying service ought to be reckoned as 31 years and 9 months.
2.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
