Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 120 (KER)

LIC of India v. K. J. John

2004-03-18

K.K.DENESAN, N.K.SODHI

body2004
Judgment :- N.K. Sodhi, C.J. This writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 1.6.2001 passed by the learned single Judge allowing OP.22800/2000. 2. Third respondent was compulsorily retired from the service of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short the ‘Corporation’) on 2.4.1975. He claimed ex-gratia relief by way of pension from the Corporation on the basis of the scheme prepared by it for the surviving pre-1986 retirees of the Corporation. This scheme came into force with effect from 1.11.1997 and all those retirees who retired before 1.1.1986 and who were living as on 1.11.1997 were eligible for the relief. According to Clause (iii) of the scheme it “applies to those who have rendered at least 20 years of continuous service prior to their superannuation and does not apply to those who are getting any pensionary benefits either from Government Corporation or erstwhile Insurance Companies.” The Corporation rejected the claim of the respondent on two grounds: (i) since the respondent had been voluntarily retired from service, he was not entitled to the relief of ex-gratia grant under the scheme. (ii) That he had not completed 20 years of service with the Corporation. The actions of the Corporation in not granting the benefit was challenged in O.P.22800/2000 in this court, which came up for hearing before a learned single Judge on 1.6.2001. On a consideration of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the respondent had 20 years of service to his credit and that the scheme did not exclude him to receive the benefits there under as it was applicable to those who had been compulsorily retired from the service of the Corporation. Feeling aggrieved by this order the Corporation is in appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that there is no merit in the Writ Appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the two contentions which were raised before the learned single Judge. He contends that the respondent had been compulsorily retired from service of the Corporation and, therefore, in terms of the clarification issued by the Central Office of the Corporation on 3.5.2000 he was not entitled to the benefit under the scheme. There is no merit on this contention. He contends that the respondent had been compulsorily retired from service of the Corporation and, therefore, in terms of the clarification issued by the Central Office of the Corporation on 3.5.2000 he was not entitled to the benefit under the scheme. There is no merit on this contention. Clause (v) of the scheme reads as under: “The Scheme of Ex-gratia Relief will not be applicable to those who were dismissed or removed or terminated from the services of the Corporation and to those who have resigned from the Corporation and to those who were on contractual/daily wages employment of the Corporation.” A reading of the aforesaid clause makes it abundantly clear that the persons who were dismissed or removed or terminated from the service of the Corporation and those who had resigned and also those who were on contractual employment/daily wages stood excluded from the operation of the scheme and were not entitled to claim any benefit there under. The respondent before us was an employee of the Corporation who had been compulsorily retired from service. Such persons were not excluded by Clause (v) of the scheme. The Central Office of the Corporation, however, issued a circular letter on 3.5.2000 to all Senior Divisional Managers under southern zone which reads as under:- “We want to advise you that the ex-gratia in lieu of pension is not sanctioned to employees who were compulsorily retired from the services of the Corporation under Regulation 39(1) of Staff Regulations, 1960.” Since this circular was issued on 3.5.2000, it would not apply to the respondent because he became entitled to claim the ex-gratia in lieu of pension on the coming into force of the scheme on 1.11.1997. This circular added another class of employees in the exclusion clause and thereby amended the scheme and denied the benefits there under to those who had been compulsorily retired. It cannot be termed as a clarification. This amendment issued to the scheme could not take away the right which had already vested in the respondent. It is by now well settled that vested rights cannot be withdrawn with retrospective effect. We are clearly of the view that the circular issued by the Central Office on 3.5.2000 would not govern the case of the respondent. This amendment issued to the scheme could not take away the right which had already vested in the respondent. It is by now well settled that vested rights cannot be withdrawn with retrospective effect. We are clearly of the view that the circular issued by the Central Office on 3.5.2000 would not govern the case of the respondent. In this view of the matter the respondent would be entitled to claim pension under the scheme as he was not one of those who stood excluded there from in terms of Clause (v) reproduced above. 4. Now coming to the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, it was urged that the respondent does not have to his credit 20 years of service with the Corporation and is, therefore, not entitled to claim the benefits under the scheme. This contention is also without any merit. Clause (iii) of the scheme which has been reproduced above makes it clear that it applies to those who have rendered at least 20 years of continuous service prior to their superannuation. It is not the requirement of this clause that 20 years of continuous service had to be with the Corporation. It is enough if an employee had a total of 20 years of service to his credit. It may be mentioned that the Corporation came to be constituted under the Life Insurance Corporation Act 1956 when all the other private insurance companies were amalgamated. The framers of the scheme were conscious that the employees from other insurance companies had joined the Corporation on its formation in the year 1956 and, therefore, made a provision in the scheme that it would apply only to those who had rendered a total of 20 years of continuous service which would include service rendered with any other insurance company prior to its merger with the Corporation. Having regard to the language used in Clause (iii) of the scheme we are of the view that the framers did not require that the continuous service should be with the Corporation. They excluded those persons from getting any pensionary benefits who were drawing such benefits from other insurance companies or government corporations. The fact that the respondent had more than 20 years of total service at the time of his compulsory retirement is not disputed. They excluded those persons from getting any pensionary benefits who were drawing such benefits from other insurance companies or government corporations. The fact that the respondent had more than 20 years of total service at the time of his compulsory retirement is not disputed. This being so he is entitled to claim the benefit of ex-gratia in lieu of pension under the scheme. 5. No other point has been raised. 6. For the reasons recorded above, no fault can be found with the order of the learned single Judge. The Writ Appeal falls and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.