Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of Sreenivas Harish Kumar and E. S. Indiresh JJ., dismissed the appeal being devoid of merits.
The facts of the case are such that the appellant was working as a Life Insurance Corporation of India i.e. LIC Agent, appointed as Field Officer on 21-01-1960 and superannuated on 01-06-1987. On 26-06-1995, LIC Pension Rules were given into effect retrospectively from 01-11-1993 which stated that such of those employees of the LIC Corporation who retired on or after 01-06-1986 would be entitled to claim the benefit under Rule 27 of the Pension Rules. Therefore, the appellant made a representation to his employer claiming additional service of five years as by the time he had completed service of twenty-seven years. Employees who have qualifying service of 33 years would be entitled to full pension and to have this benefit, he claimed the benefit under Rule 27. But his representation was rejected pursuant to which another representation was made which was rejected again. Assailing this, writ petition was filed which was dismissed. Hence the instant appeal.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has not applied his mind as the appellant was entitled to claim benefit under Rule 27 for adding 5 years weightage for claiming for a full pension. It was further submitted that the cause of action is recurring as the appellant does not get actual pension that could be paid to him if an additional weightage of 5 years is given, thus the cause of action keeps recurring.
The Court observed that the principle that “in matters relating to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted inspite of delay, as it does not affect the rights of third parties” is not applicable in the instant case. The prescribed qualification for recruiting a field officer was matriculation and it does not require any special qualification as envisaged under Rule 27.
In light of facts, arguments and observations, the Court held that the appellant was not entitled to take the benefit of Rule 27 and the delay does not matter.
In view of the above, appeal was dismissed.[B. K. Kalaghatagi v. Secretary, Writ Appeal No. 100013 of 2020, decided on 02-03-2021]
Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
