Case: Asger Ibrahim Amin Vs. Life Insurance Corp. Of India

2. 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 request of the Appellant for waiver of the stipulated three months notice was favourably considered by the Corporation vide letter dated 28.2.1991, and the Appellant was allowed to resign from the post of Deputy General Manager (Accounts), which he was holding at that time. We shall again presume that the reasons that he had ascribed for his retirement, viz. family problems and failing health, were found to be legitimate by the Respondent, otherwise the waiver ought not to have been given. Thereafter, the Central Government in exercise of power conferred under Section 48 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 had notified the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 and thereafter the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ?Pension Rules?) which, though notified on 28.6.1995, were given retrospective effect from 1.11.1993. The Pension Rules provide, inter alia, that resignation from service would lead to forfeiture of the benefits of the entire service including eligibility for pension.  3. 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. The Appellant took the matter no further but has averred that in 2000, prompted by news in a Daily and Judgments of a High Court and a Tribunal, he requested the Respondent to reconsider his case for pension. This request has remained unanswered. 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 on 29.3.2012 before the High Court, which was dismissed by the Single Judge vide Judgment dated 5.10.2012. The LPA of the Appellant also got dismissed on the grounds of the delay of almost 14 years, as also on merits vide Judgment dated 1.3.2013, against which the Appellant has approached this Court.

Reasoning: 4. As regards the issue of delay in matters pertaining to claims of pension, it has already been opined by this Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648  that in cases of continuing or successive wrongs, delay and laches or limitation will not thwart the claim so long as the claim, if allowed, does not have any adverse repercussions on the settled third-party rights. This Court held:7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition(emphasis is ours)We respectfully concur with these observations which if extrapolated or applied to the factual matrix of the present case would have the effect of restricting the claim for pension, if otherwise sustainable in law, to three years previous to when it was raised in a judicial forum. Such claims recur month to month and would not stand extinguished on the application of the laws of prescription, merely because the legal remedy pertaining to the time barred part of it has become unavailable. This is too well entrenched in our jurisprudence, foreclosing any fresh considerationn our opinion, the advantage of these beneficent Rules should be extended even to the Appellant who was similarly placed as the retirees mentioned in Rule 3 but for the fact that he had ‘resigned? rather than retired. The two provisions caught in the crossfire are Rule 2(s), which defines ?retirement? and Rule 23, which deals with the ?forfeiture of service?:12. What is unmistakably evident in the case at hand is that the Appellant had worked continuously for over 20 years, that he sought to discontinue his services and requested waiver of three months notice in writing, and that the said notice was accepted by the Respondent Corporation and the Appellant was thereby allowed to discontinue his services. If one would examine Rule 31 of the Pension Rules juxtaposed with the aforementioned facts, it would at once be obvious and perceptible that the essential components of that Rule stand substantially fulfilled in the present case. In Sheelkumar, this Court was alive to the factum that each case calls for scrutiny on its own merits, but that such scrutiny should not be detached from the purpose and objective of the concerned statute. It thus observed:30. The aforesaid authorities would show that the court will have to construe the statutory provisions in each case to find out whether the termination of service of an employee was a termination by way of resignation or a termination by way of voluntary retirement and while construing the statutory provisions, the court will have to keep in mind the purposes of the statutory provisions31. The general purpose of the 1995 Pension Scheme, read as a whole, is to grant pensionary benefits to employees, who had rendered service in the insurance companies and had retired after putting in the qualifying service in the insurance companies. Paras 22 and 30 of the 1995 Pension Scheme cannot be so construed so as to deprive of an employee of an insurance company, such as the appellant, who had put in the qualifying service for pension and who had voluntarily given up his service after serving 90 days? notice in accordance with sub-para (1) of Para 5 of the 1976 Scheme and after his notice was accepted by the appointing authority13. The Appellant ought not to be deprived of pension benefits merely because he styled his termination of services as ?resignation? or because there was no provision to retire voluntarily at that time. The commendable objective of the Pension Rule is to extend benefits to a class of people to tide over the crisis and vicissitudes of old age, and if there are some inconsistencies between the statutory provisions and the avowed objective of the statute so as to discriminate between the beneficiaries within the class, the end of justice obligates us to palliate the differences between the two and reconcile them as far as possible. We would be failing in our duty, if we go by the letter and not by the laudatory spirit of statutory provisions and the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of IndiaThe legal position deducible from the above observations further amplifies that the so-called resignation tendered by the Appellant was after satisfactorily serving the period of 20 years ordinarily qualifying or enabling voluntary retirement. Furthermore, while there was no compulsion to do so, a waiver of the three months notice period was granted by the Respondent CorporationThe State being a model employer should construe the provisions of a beneficial legislation in a way that extends the benefit to its employees, instead of curtailing it