A C BANIK Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner.

(2.) The appellant-petitioner was admittedly born on 1.1.1926. He joined the National Insurance Company as Senior Divisional Manager on 1.1.1973. His service was eventually transferred to L.I.C. following the Nationalisation. He retired from the service on 31.12.1983. In 1995, more precisely on 28.6.1995, a scheme was introduced called the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995 whereby the pension scheme was made applicable to the employees who were in service of the Company on or after 1.1.1986 but had retired before the 1" day of November, 1993. The writ petitioner did nothing till the year 1999 and claims that he came to know about the Scheme only in the year 1999. He claims to have sent various representations, more particularly which were answered on 8.3.2002, 25.2.2003 as also on 31.12.1999 that the Scheme was not applicable to him. This was on account of the representations made by the petitioner to avail of the said Pension Scheme. In short, the case of the appellant-petitioner was that though he was born on 1.1.1926, he could not be said to have been retired on 31.12.1985 because he would have ordinarily attained the age of 60 not on 31.12.1985 but on 1.1.1986 and as such he could have been retired from the service only at the end of that month and, thus, he would have been in service of the National Insurance Company on 1.1.1986 and would have been entitled to avail of the Scheme.

(3.) The learned Single Judge firstly referred to a Circular dated 17.7.1982 which was prevailing in the Company being Circular No. PERS-MPL/HO/27/82. This Circular was issued in supersession of the Circular No. PERS-MPL/HO/16/82 dated 5th May, 1982 under which it was specifically informed that if the employee was born on 1st day of a month he would attain the age of 60 years (or 58 years, as the case may be) on the last day of the preceding month. For example, if he was born on 1st July, 1922 he would attain the age of 60 years on 30th June, 1982 and would stand retired from that date. The learned Judge heavily relied on this Circular as also Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules which are in principle followed by the National Insurance Company for the purposes of retirement. The learned Judge, therefore, came to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner was not right on merits. According to the learned Judge, even otherwise the writ petition could not be entertained for the simple reason that the writ petition was filed sometime in the year 2004, that is, with towering laches of about 9 years or, as the case may be, 5 years. According to the learned Judge, the laches were nowhere explained by the petitioner. On that count, the writ petition came to be dismissed. It is that judgment which has been challenged before us.