Following is the Land Mark Judgement by Supreme Court for LIC employee!
It is 100% applicable to IBA.
Will UFBU take up this as most urgent subject and proceed to get Pension for the Resignees?
*****************************************************************
REPORTABLE
IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 10251 OF 2014
ASGER
IBRAHIM AMIN .. APPELLANT
VERSUS
LIFE
INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA .. RESPONDENT
J
U D G M E N T
VIKRAMAJIT
SEN, J.
1.
The question which falls for
consideration 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.
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.
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:
