2015 Supreme(SC) 954

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
ASGER IBRAHIM AMIN – APPELLANT
VERSUS
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA – RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10251 OF 2014
Decided On : 12-10-2015

IMPORTANT POINTS
Pension being a continuing claim not affecting third party is not affected by limitation. However, if claim found sustainable in law, benefits could be restricted to three years prior to when it was raised in judicial forum.
When the service rules did not provide for voluntary retirement and resignation was the only mode of terminating employment by the employee and provision of voluntary retirement introduced at later date but with retrospective effect covering the period of employee’s resignation, he would be entitled to benefit of voluntary retirement and pension subject to the conditions prescribed like refund of employers’ contribution to provident fund etc.

Headnote:(a) Service law – Pension – Claim filed after 14 years of retirement – Petition dismissed for delay and laches – Pension is a continuing claim – Claim not affecting third party – Not affected by limitation – However, if claim found sustainable in law, benefits could be restricted to three years prior to when it was raised in judicial forum. (Para 4)

       (2008) 8 SCC 648 – Relied upon

       (b) LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 – Regulation 18 r/w Rule 23 and 31, Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 – Appellant resigning after 23 years of service and attaining 55 years of age – Requirement of three month’s notice waived for appellant – Pension Rules not in existence at that time though introduced later with retrospective effect covering the date of appellant’s resignation – Whether resignation or voluntary retirement – 1960 Regulations not providing for voluntary retirement – Having determined his service at the age of 55 years and after serving for 23 years, appellant had earned right to pension – Rule 23 providing for forfeiture of service not applicable to appellant’s case – Had the 1995 Rules made applicable from 1.1.1993 actually been enforced on that day, appellant could have gone for voluntary retirement – That option not been available to him he had no option but to resign – Respondent being a model employer could and should have extended the advantage of these Pension Rules to the Appellant thereby safeguarding his pension entitlement. (Para 6, 7, 8)

       (c) Pension Rules of 1995 – Rule 31 – Appellant tendering resignation after satisfactorily serving the period of 20 years, the required qualifying period under Rule 31 – Appellant satisfying all conditions of Rule 31 – Appellant tendering resignation because there was no other mode of discontinuing service ike voluntary retirement lat that time – Furthermore, Respondent Corporation granted waiver of the three months notice period without there being any compulsion – Held, termination of services of the Appellant, in essence, was voluntary retirement under Rule 31 – Appellant held entitled for pension, provided he refunds the entire amount of the Corporation’s contribution to the Provident Fund along with interest accrued thereon. (Para 15, 16)

       (2011) 12 SCC 197 – Relied upon

       (2004) 9 SCC 461; (1994) 2 SCC 521; (2010) 12 SCC 538; (2012) 9 SCC 671; (2014) 5 SCC 189; (2004) 4 SCC 412 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

       The question falling for consideration in this case is whether the Appellant is entitled to claim pension even though he resigned from service of his own volition and, if so, whether his claim on this count had become barred by limitation or laches.

       The Appellant joined the services of the Respondent Corporation on 30.6.1967 on the post of Assistant Administrative Officer (Chartered Accountant) at the age of twenty seven. He worked for 23 years and 7 months in the Corporation before tendering his resignation on 28.1.1991, owing to “family circumstances and indifferent health”, presumably having crossed fifty years in age.

       The Appellant was allowed to resign from the post of Deputy General Manager (Accounts), which he was holding at that time. The Pension Rules provide that resignation from service would lead to forfeiture of the benefits of the entire service including eligibility for pension.

       On 8.8.1995, that is post the promulgation by the Respondent of the Pension Rules, the Appellant enquired from the Respondent whether he was entitled to pension under the Pension Rules, which has been understood by the Respondent as a representation for pension; the Respondent replied that the request of the Appellant cannot be acceded to.

       It was in 2011 that he sent a legal notice to the Respondent, in response to which the Respondent reiterated its stand that the Appellant, having resigned from service, was not eligible to claim pension under the Pension Rules.

       Eventually, the Appellant filed a Special Civil Application before the High Court, which was dismissed by the Single Judge. The LPA of the Appellant also got dismissed on the grounds of the delay of almost 14 years, as also on merits.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.

       Result: Appeal allowed.