C. Krishnan & K.N.G. Kurup v Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others, WP(C).No.6228 of 2009(W)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.6228 OF 2009(W)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 C.KRISHNAN RETIRED ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, LIC OF INDIA, RESIDING AT PRASANTHI,1/1742, B.G.ROAD, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE 673 005.** - **2 K.N.G.KURUP** **RETIRED ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, RESIDING AT 'POORNADEEPAM', KALAMPUKATTU, AMALAGIRI PO, KOZHIKODE 686 036.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 LIFE INSURANCE CORPROATION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, YOGAKSHEMA, JEEVAN BHIMA MARG, MUMBAI 400 021.** - **2 THE ZONAL MANAGER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, ANNA ROAD, MADRAS 600 002.** - **3 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HOZUR ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673 001.** - **4 ADDL.R4-FEDERATION OF RETIRED LIC CLASS I OFFICERS ASSOCIATIONS** **REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, D.KRISHNAN, 6D, SRESHTA RIVER SIDE, WOOD CREED ROAD, NANDAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600089.(ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02.7.2018 IN IA.NO, 9957/2018)** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.EASWARAN SRI.JACOB MATHEW MANALIL SRI.G.G.MANOJ** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-062019, THE COURT ON 07-08-2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.6228 OF 2009(W) 2** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed by the retired employees of Life Insurance Corporation (LIC)seeking the following reliefs :- _''(i) Declare that in the light of Exhibit P9 judgment of the Supreme Court and P10 judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the petitioners who are Class I Officers of the LIC of India who have retired between the period from 01.08.1992 to 31.07.1994 are entitled to receive the arrears of pay and all consequential benefits treating the pay revision as to have come into effect with effect from 01.08.1992._ _(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents 1 to 3 herein to grant the arrears of pay due to the petitioners who are retired Class I Officers with all consequential benefits like difference in basic pay, CCA wherever applicable, HRA and increase in pension by applying the new terminal basic pay treating the revision of pay to have come into effect from 01.08.1992 to all the Class I Officers.''_ 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. It is stated that the petitioners, who were Class 1 officers of the LIC, who retired during the period from 1.08.1992, to 31.07.1994 are also entitled to the benefits of pay revision brought into effect from 1.08.1992 and to all consequential benefits. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on a decision of the Rajasthan High Court _**in LIC v. Mahesh**_ ## **WP(C).No.6228 OF 2009(W) 3** _**Chand Jain**_ in (D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.1492/2012). Ext.P9 judgment of the Apex Court and Ext.P11 judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court are also relied on to contend that the petitioners are entitled to arrears of pension and all consequential benefits treating the pay revision as having come into effect from 01.08.1992. 5. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the respondents. It is stated that Ext.P1 pay revision order was made applicable to employees of the LIC. But Ext.P3 instructions had been issued specifying that the revision of pay shall take effect from 1.4.1993 and no arrears shall be paid to persons who were in service from 1.8.1992 to 1.4.1993. It is stated that the petitioners, having retired from service during the period from 01.08.1992 to 31.07.1994, had not raised their claim for nearly 15 years and the claim is therefore hopelessly belated. It is stated that Mahesh Chand Jain's case (supra) was not one in rem and that the benefits would be available only to the petitioner therein. It is stated that neither Ext.P9 judgment nor the judgments of this Court against which the Special Leave Petition was filed had accepted the claim of the petitioners that arrears of the pay revision are payable with effect from 01.08.1992. It is contended that the finding specifically was that the power of the ## **WP(C).No.6228 OF 2009(W) 4** Chairman under the Regulation extends to the fixation of the date from which arrears of pay revision become due. 6. It is stated that the applicability of Ext.P1 pay revision order to the employees of the LIC had been considered by this Court in O.P.No.11231 of 1997 and it was specifically held that the benefit of revision of pay would be confined to persons who continued in service as on 1.4.1993 or thereafter. Exts.P7 and P8 judgments make this position clear. It is stated that all benefits due under Exts.P7, P8 & P9 judgments have already been disbursed to the employees and the claim raised for arrears from 01.08.1992 had been specifically considered and found against in the said judgments. 7. I have considered the contentions advanced. Ext.P7 judgment of this Court specifically considered the right of the persons who retired between 1.8.1992 and 31.8.1994 and considered their claim for the benefit of the pay revision orders which had been made applicable to the employees of the LIC. It was the specific case of the petitioners, who were represented by the first petitioner Retired LIC Officers Association, that the persons who retired from service from 1.8.1992 onwards had been discriminated in the matter of reckoning of gratuity though they were treated as eligible for pay and allowances from March, ## **WP(C).No.6228 OF 2009(W) 5** 1993. The issue of applicability of the pay revision orders was considered by this Court. It was held that by virtue of the power conferred on the Chairman, LIC under Regulations 51(2) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, the chairman was empowered to fix a date from which alone the benefit of revision of pay would be extended to the employees. It was therefore held that the claims raised in the O.P.No.11231 of 1997 are upheld, but confined to persons who continued in service after 01.04.1993. However, in respect of gratuity, it was held that the terminal pay is to be taken note of and that as such, the employees would be entitled to get gratuity taking note of the pay as revised in respect of officers who had retired after 1.4.1993. 8. This judgment was taken in appeal by the LIC and Ext.P8 judgment was the result. Considering the powers under clause 51(2)of the Regulations, the Division Bench held that the power under the Clause is only with regard to the fixation of date on which the pay revision benefits would become payable. It was therefore held that gratuity being a statutory claim, the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act would have overriding effect and that gratuity is to be paid taking note of the revision of pay which had come into effect from 01.04.1993. The appeal filed by the LIC ## **WP(C).No.6228 OF 2009(W) 6** was thus dismissed. The Special Leave Petition attempted against Ext.P8 judgment was also dismissed by Ext.P9. Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the opinion that Exts.P7 to P9 judgments would govern the case of the petitioners who are admittedly persons who retired from service between 1.8.1992 and 31.07.1994. The judgments have specifically upheld the power of the Chairman to fix the cut off date and effect from which the benefits of the pay revision would be applicable to the employees. It was held that the claims of the petitioners are upheld with respect to those who continued in service after 01.04.1993, the date on which the arrears of pay revision was made available to the employees by the LIC. As such, the petitioners have been granted all the benefits to which they were entitled in terms of Exhibits P7 and P9 judgments. Any further claim for arrears with effect from 01.08.1992 is therefore completely misconceived. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. ## **SD/-** ## **ANU SIVARAMAN** ## **JUDGE** rmm **WP(C).No.6228 OF 2009(W) 7** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA CLASS I OFFICERS(REVISION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) (AMENDMENT)RULES, 1996. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA CLASS III AND IV EMPLOYEES (REVISION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE)(AMENDMENT RULES 1996 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF LIC OF INDIA IN RESPECT OF CLASS I OFFICERS. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF LIC OF INDIA IN RESPECT OF CLASS III AND IV EMPLOYEES EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.3835/ASP/96 DATED 19.7.1996 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF CLASS I EMPLOYEES. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.3834/ASP/1996 DATED 4.3.1996 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF CLASS III & IV EMPLOYEES. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 8.7.2003 IN O.P.NO.11231/1997 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 29.9.2005 IN W.A.NO, 32/2004. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 12.2.2008 IN APPEAL(CIVIL) NO,1289/2007 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF CWP NO, 1128/1997 FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 4.7.2008 IN CWP NO, 1128/1997 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE DATED 20.8.2008** **WP(C).No.6228 OF 2009(W) 8** **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19.3.2008 ISSUED BY THE LIC OF INDIA EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.9.2008 ISSUED BY THE LIC OF INDIA.** **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL** **// TRUE COPY //** **PA. TO JUDGE**