JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner retired from the service of the respondent, The Life Insurance Corporation of India (the "LIC") under the impugned orders, Exts. P-5 and P-5(a), at the age of 58. The complaint of the petitioner is that he was prematurely retired, for according to him, being a transferred employee, the retirement age applicable to him was 60 and not 58. This, he says, is provided under Regulation.19(1) made by the L.I.C. under S.49(2) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (the "Act"). 2. The petitioner was an employee of the Andhra Insurance Company Ltd., (the "previous employer") prior to the transfer of its "controlled business" to the L.I.C. in terms of and pursuant to the Act. It is stated that the petitioner was an employee under the previous employer until 31st August, 1956 and that he stood transferred to the L.I.C. along with the business of the previous employer as per provisions of the Act. The petitioner, therefore, says that he was a transferred employee entitled to the protection of Regulation.19(1) which reads: "19(1) An employee belonging to Class III or Class IV and a transferred employee belonging to Class I or Class II shall retire on completion of age 60; but the appointing authority may direct such employee to retire on completion of 55 years of age or at any time thereafter, if his efficiency is found to have been impaired: Provided that an employee who is a member of any approved superannuation fund, as defined in clause.(a) of S.58-N of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 and which has been recognised and allowed to be continued by the Corporation, shall be permitted upon request to retire before the date of retirement specified in this sub-regulation either (a) on completion of 25 years of service or (b) on completion of 20 years of service, provided he has reached age 50 or (c) on completion of 28 years of service if he is incapacitated for further active service." 3. According to the L.I.C. the petitioner was not a transferred employee for the reason that his service under the previous employer had terminated on 31st August, 1956 and he was re-appointed by the L.I.C. as a fresh employee on the basis of Ext. R-2 order. According to the L.I.C. the petitioner was not a transferred employee for the reason that his service under the previous employer had terminated on 31st August, 1956 and he was re-appointed by the L.I.C. as a fresh employee on the basis of Ext. R-2 order. Accordingly it is contended, by the L.I.C. that the petitioner was not protected in terms of Regulation.19 and he was, therefore, rightly retired at the age of 58 by the impugned orders. The short question, therefore, is whether or not the petitioner was a transferred employee within the meaning of S.11 of the Act. If the petitioner were a transferred employee there would be no dispute as to his right under Regulation.19. 4. Section 11 reads: "11. (1) Every whole time employee of an insurer whose controlled business has been transferred to and vested in the Corporation and who was employed by the insurer wholly or mainly in connection with his controlled business immediately before the appointed day, become an employee of the Corporation, and shall hold his office therein by the same tenure, at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and with same rights and privileges as to pension and gratuity and other matters as he would have held the same on the appointed day if this Act had not been passed, and shall continue to do so unless and until his employment in the Corporation is terminated or until his remuneration, terms and conditions are duly altered by the Corporation: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to any such employee who has, by notice in writing given to the Central Government prior to the appointed day, intimated his intention of not becoming an employee of the Corporation. (2) Where the Central Government is satisfied that for the purpose of securing uniformity in the scales of remuneration and the other terms and conditions of service applicable to employees of insurers whose controlled business has been transferred to, and vested in, the Corporation, it is necessary so to do, or that, in the interests of the Corporation and its policyholders, a reduction in the remuneration payable, or a revision of the other terms and conditions of service applicable, to employees or any class of them is called for the Central Government may, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s.(1), or in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or in any other law for the time being in force, or in any award, settlement or agreement for the time being in force, alter (whether by way of reduction or otherwise) the remuneration and the other terms and conditions of service to such extent and in such manner as it thinks fit; and if the alteration is not acceptable to any employee, the Corporation may terminate his employment by giving him compensation equivalent to three months' remuneration unless the contract of service with such employee provides for a shorter notice of termination. ..........................................." (emphasis supplied) S.11(1) protects the rights of an employee of an insurer, whose controlled business has been taken over under the Act, in regard to his tenure and other terms and conditions of employment, provided he was employed by the insurer wholly or mainly in connection with his controlled business immediately before the appointed day, that is, 1st September, 1956. This, however, is subject to the right of the L.I.C. to terminate the employee's service or alter the conditions of his service in the manner prescribed. Sub-s.(2) gives the Central Government the power to make rules altering the terms and conditions of service of a transferred employee if such alteration is necessary for the purpose of securing uniformity in the scales of remuneration and conditions of service applicable to the transferred employees as a class. There is no case that either the L.I.C. or the Central Government made any alteration in the conditions of service of the petitioner. The only contention of the L.I.C. is that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits because he was not a transferred employee. 5. There is no case that either the L.I.C. or the Central Government made any alteration in the conditions of service of the petitioner. The only contention of the L.I.C. is that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits because he was not a transferred employee. 5. It is the legislative intent to guarantee to every employee who came over to the L.I.C. along with the controlled business of his previous employer in terms of the Act that all the conditions of service which he enjoyed under the previous employer would remain unaltered despite the transfer, except in cases where by specific orders of the L.I.C. or of the Government these conditions were altered. In other words, except where specific alterations have been deliberately made by the L.I.C. or the Government, no person shall be prejudiced by reason of the transfer of his service to the L.I.C. if he was an "employee" under the previous employer immediately before the transfer of the business. S.11, of course, does not protect a person whose service had been terminated by his previous employer prior to the appointed day. If such termination had occurred, either by reason of the employer's act or the employee's act, the employee would have no case under S.11. 6. It is significant to note that the L.I.C. has no case that the petitioner had not been employed under the previous employer wholly or mainly in connection with its controlled business immediately before the appointed day. All these facts are admitted. What is not admitted is the petitioner's contention that his service under the previous employer stood transferred to the L.I.C. The question really is whether the petitioner joined the L.I.C. as a transferred employee or as a fresh hand. 7. The petitioner by Ext. R-1 letter, dated 23rd August, 1956 wrote to the L.I.C. as follows: "I am directed by my employers, the Andhra Insurance Co. Ltd. to apply for a suitable post as a field worker on the termination of my employment under them as a pro rata Inspector with effect from 1st September, 1956. Hence, this letter. I have already submitted several forms and statements duly filled up in this connection through my employers. I beg to request that I may be appointed for a suitable post considering the papers submitted by me. Hence, this letter. I have already submitted several forms and statements duly filled up in this connection through my employers. I beg to request that I may be appointed for a suitable post considering the papers submitted by me. Awaiting your reply." (emphasis supplied) The letter was perhaps ill advised in so far as he says that he was directed to apply for a suitable post under the L.I.C. He had no such obligation, for his service was taken over by the L.I.C. under the Act along with the business of the previous employer as on the appointed day and it was for the L.I.C. to accommodate him in a suitable post under it with reference to his previous service and experience. Unwise probably as it might have been, Ext. R-1 letter was sent by the petitioner. Ext. P-11 application, dated 10th September, 1956 was subsequently sent by the petitioner on the advice of the L.I.C. who apparently told him that he could not be employed on the basis of Ext. R-1 letter unless a formal application was made. The advice rendered by the L.I.C. was, in my view, incorrect, for the petitioner had no such obligation. Nevertheless, strange as it might seem, the petitioner made an application under Ext. P-11, Clause.7(B)(v)(i) of which contains a question which reads: "Reason for giving up appointment". To this the petitioner answered: "For better prospects." That question was, in my view, misleading, although, being a standard application form, it was not particularly intended to mislead the petitioner. But on the facts of this case the question was indeed misleading, for, the petitioner had not given up the employment, but came with the rest of the staff of the previous employer by reason of the take over of the business under the Act. Unwise as it might have been, he answered the question by saying "for better prospects". True, the petitioner expected better prospects under a nationalised institution and spoke the truth, perhaps imprecisely in law. It is upon that statement of the petitioner, truthfully but unwisely made, that the L.I.C. has now built up a case against his claim for the benefit under Regulation. 19(1). 8. By Ext. True, the petitioner expected better prospects under a nationalised institution and spoke the truth, perhaps imprecisely in law. It is upon that statement of the petitioner, truthfully but unwisely made, that the L.I.C. has now built up a case against his claim for the benefit under Regulation. 19(1). 8. By Ext. R-2 the L.I.C. wrote to the petitioner as follows: "I have to inform you that you are Provisionally appointed as Probationary Inspector from 1st December, 1956 in the Coimbatore Division of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. This appointment is subject to review and confirmation in due course. You are requested to contact Sri. K. Kunjunni Menon, Assistant Branch Manager (Development), Kozhikode and I shall be glad if you will carry out the directions he will be giving you with respect to your taking up your new duties. I look forward to your best cooperation in ensuring that the activities of the Corporation meet with success." (emphasis supplied) The petitioner did not demur to Ext. R-2 probably because he did not see the significance of the word "provisionally" or because he was too happy to protest: happy because he was absorbed in the service of the L.I.C. By Ext. P-3, dated 1st December, 1956 the L.I.C. again wrote to the petitioner. I shall read the first paragraph. "Further to our letter dated ....... we have pleasure in advising you that you are appointed as an Inspector of Agencies under our Kozhikode Branch. You will please note that for all purposes your employment with the Corporation begins from 1st December, 1956, and that it is not in continuation of any previous employment with any insurer in any capacity." (emphasis supplied) The petitioner ought to have understood the implication of what is stated by the L.I.C. But he missed it. It is likely that it did not occur to him that he was denied the benefit of the earlier service under the previous employer by reason of the fact that his employment with the Corporation was considered to begin on 1st December, 1956. In all likelihood the petitioner would have truthfully thought that his service with the L.I.C. actually commenced on 1st December, 1956, but without prejudice to the benefit of his earlier service as guaranteed by the Act. In all likelihood the petitioner would have truthfully thought that his service with the L.I.C. actually commenced on 1st December, 1956, but without prejudice to the benefit of his earlier service as guaranteed by the Act. Whatever that be, the question really is will the petitioner, who did not, by ignorance or oversight, notice the significance of the statements contained in Exts. R-2 and P-3 stand to lose the benefit granted by the Act. 9. If as a matter of fact the petitioner's service under the previous employer did not terminate at any material time prior to the appointed day, it was indeed the legislative intent to protect the benefit of his service under the previous employer and his right to remain in the service of the L.I.C. till the age of 60 as guaranteed under Regulation.19(1). The L.I.C. is, in the eye of the law, a continuation of the previous employer whose personality and status merged with the L.I.C. upon the coming into force of the Act. If the petitioner was an employee of the previous employer until the time the merger took effect, then, in the eye of the law, the petitioner stood transferred to the L.I.C. on the appointed day, and the L.I.C. is deemed to have always been his employer and is bound to protect his terms and conditions of service in terms of the Act. However, unwise or ill advised the employee might have been, however misguided he was in making statements in his application for employment, however irresponsible he might have been in ignoring the letters sent to him by the L.I.C. stipulating the conditions, of his employment, otherwise than in terms of the Statute, any such innocent default or failure on the part of the employee cannot on his part amount in law to a deliberate and conscious waiver of right. The object of the legislature was not only to take over the business of the "insurer" but also to protect the rights of his employees. That was one of the purposes of the enactment, which was not an insignificant purpose. This purpose and the clear legislative intent must of necessity override the technical arguments of the employer so as not to deny an employee his rightful claim under the Act and the Regulations. 10. That was one of the purposes of the enactment, which was not an insignificant purpose. This purpose and the clear legislative intent must of necessity override the technical arguments of the employer so as not to deny an employee his rightful claim under the Act and the Regulations. 10. On a careful consideration of the relevant circumstances and the terms of employment of the petitioner, with reference to the provisions of the Act and the Regulations, I am satisfied that the petitioner's service under his previous employer did not terminate at any relevant time and that he was one of the persons who stood transferred to the L.I.C. on the appointed day. In the circumstances, it is declared that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits which are guaranteed to him under the Act andthe relevant Rules and Regulations. Accordingly I hold that the petitioner was entitled to remain in service in terms of Regulation.19(1). In this connection I should refer to Regulation.19(2) which gives the L.I.C. the discretion to allow an employee to remain in service till the age. It reads: "19(2) An employee belonging to Class I or Class II appointed to the service of the Corporation on or after 1st September, 1956 shall retire on completion of 58 years of age, but the appointing authority may at its discretion, extend his service for one year at a time up to 60 years of age. The appointing authority may however, direct an employee to retire on completion of 55 years of age or at any time thereafter if his efficiency is found to have been impaired. .................................................................." This is a discretion which, in the circumstances of this case. I strongly feel that the L.I.C., as a nationalised institution, dedicated to the interests of its employees, ought to have in any case exercised in favour of the petitioner. That was not done and, therefore, the petitioner retired on completion of 58 years. Nevertheless, in the light of what is stated above, the petitioner is entitled to the financial benefits which he would have received had he continued in service for another two years. I so declare. Accordingly I quash Exts. P-5, P5(a), P-7 and P-9. The 1st respondent, the Life Insurance Corporation of India, is directed to pass appropriate orders without delay on the basis of what is stated above. The Original Petition is allowed. No costs.