LIC OF INDIA Vs. K J JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Wirt Appeal is directed against the order dated 1.6.2001 passed by the learned single Judge allowing O. P. 22800/2000.

(2.) The 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 action 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 thereunder 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 contents 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 in this contention. Clause (v) of the scheme reads as under: