SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, R. Banumathi, JJ.
LIC of India and Others – Appellants
Versus
Krishna Murari Lal Asthana and Another Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8959-8962, 6995, 9223, 9409-9410 of 2013
Decided On : 31-03-2016
(b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Challenge to constitutional validity of some provision raised – High Court should address it. (Para 17)
AIR 1983 SC 130, (1983) 1 SCC 305; (1992) Supp 1 SCC 664; (1998) 8 SCC 30 – Referred
(c) Administration of Justice – Constitutional validity – One assailing constitutional validity of a statutory provision or a rule must assert grounds for such challenge – Issues cannot be examined/adjudicated in absence of adequate pleadings. (Para 18, 26)
AIR 1964 SC 1135; (1974) 2 SCC 738; (2000) 2 SCC 223; (2004) 12 SCC 673 – Relied upon
(d) Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 – Appendix IV, Para 3A – Employees divided in two categories – Retiring prior to cu-off date, not getting dearness relief – Other, retiring after cut-off date but to whom benefit of dearness relief not extended despite subsequent pay revisions – Rajasthan High Court deciding the issue on basis of concession from, counsel for Union of India – Not adverting to challenge to Para 3A of Appendix IV on ground of Article 14 – Cases from Punjab and Haryana High Court and Rajasthan High Court transferred to Delhi High Court which shall decide constitutional validity of Para 3A. (Para 22, 23)
(1996) 10 SCC 574; (1998) 2 SCC 523; (2011) 12 SCC 658; (2014) 14 SCC 77 – Referred
(e) Administration of justice – Interim order and final verdict – Interim order does not have any impact at the time of final verdict – Direction given that final verdict shall be applicable to all similarly placed persons. (Para 28)
Facts of the case:
This case concerns the pension scheme of the LIC of India.
Finding of the Court:
High Court should have adverted to validity of Para 3A of appendix IV to the 1975 Rules.
Result: Appeals disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Dipak Misra, J.
Pension though, by the judicial pronouncements, has been treated as not a bounty yet the controversy relating to the said claim and denial thereof has been a matter of frequent cavil between the employer and the employee in numerous situations. And that is why this Court has been required to deal with and render judgments pertaining to pension and interpretation of the rules or policies or schemes relating thereto.
2. The present set of appeals fresco a picture which is not a happy one. It appears that the appellant, the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short' 'the Corporation') at one point of time was enthusiastic to confer certain benefits on the respondent-employees, may be without appreciating the legal nuances but its action irrefragably instilled a concrete hope in thousands of employees.
3. The Corporation is controlled by the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (for brevity, 'the Act'). Section 21 of the Act which provides that the Corporation to be guided by the directions of the Central Government reads as follows:-
“21. Corporation to be guided by the directions of Central Government. - In the discharge of its functions under this Act, the Corporation shall be guided by such directions in matters of policy involving public interest as the Central Government may give to it in writing; and if any question arises whether a direction relates to a matter of policy involving public interest, the decision of the Central Government thereon shall be final.”
4. Section 48 of the Act which is pertinent for the present purpose empowers the authorities to make rules. Section 48(1) and (3) to which our attention has been invited read as follows:-
“48. Power to make rules.-(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-
(a) the term of office and the conditions of service of members;
(aa) the instruments which may be issued and the amount of working capital under sub-section (2) of section 5;
(b) the manner in which the moneys and other assets belonging to any such fund as is referred to in Section 8 shall be apportioned between the trustees of the fund and the Corporation;
(c) the services which the chief agent should have rendered for the purpose of the proviso to section 12;
(cc) the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the Corporation, including those who became employees of the Corporation on the appointed day under this Act;
(d) the jurisdiction of the Tribunals constituted under section 17;
(e) the manner in which, and the persons to whom, any compensation under this Act may be paid;
(f) the time within which any matter which may be referred to a Tribunal for decision under this Act may be so referred;
(g) the manner in which and the conditions subject to which investments may be made by the Corporation;
(h) the manner in which an Employees and Agents Relations Committee may be constituted for each zonal office;
(i) the form in which the report giving an account of the activities of the Corporation shall be prepared;
(j) the conditions subject to which the Corporation may appoint employees;
(k) the fees payable under this Act and the manner in which they are to be collected;
(l) any other matter which has to be or may be prescribed.
2(A)(B)(C)
xxx xxx xxx xxx
(3) Every rule made by the Central Government under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effec
Vimaleshwar Nagappa Shet v. Noor Ahmed Shariff3
State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Mohnot
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130
All India Reserve Bank retired Officers Association v. Union of India
V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India
Union of India v. SPS Vains (Retd.)
K.J.S. Buttar v. Union of India
Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Officials Association, Tamil Nadu v. State of Tamil Nadu
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kartar Singh
State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Jayaraman
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.