Ramesh Chandra Khandelwal vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

Veerendra Singh Siradhana, J.—The petitioner, a retired employee of Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the ''respondent Corporation'', for short), approached this Court by way of a writ application being S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 6786 of 2005 (Ramesh Chandra Khandelwal v. Life Insurance Corporation of India) in the year 2005; claiming benefit of addition of 8 months service in qualifying service of the petitioner in terms of Rule 27 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules of 1995'', for short). However, the writ application was withdrawn with the permission to make a representation to the respondent Corporation. This Court vide order dated 29th February, 2008, granted the permission with a direction to decide the representation, if made, within a period of two months from the date of its receipt keeping in view the law declared by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. S. Dharmalingam, The respondent Corporation vide impugned order dated 26th June, 2008 (Annexure-8) has decided the representation of the petitioner in compliance of the direction issued by this Court on 29th February, 2008. Aggrieved by the rejection of the representation vide impugned order dated 26th June, 2008, the petitioner has again instituted the above noted writ application for an appropriate writ, order or direction for grant of benefit of addition of 8 months service in qualifying service, in terms of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1995, for the purpose of fixation of his pension on the date of his retirement i.e. 28th February, 1995.

Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts necessary to put the controversy in its proper perspective may be first outlined. The petitioner was recruited as Development Officer, in the respondent Corporation on 20th October, 1962, beyond the age of 25 years as his date of birth being 25th February, 1937. The age limit for appointment to the post of Class-II (Development Officer) at the relevant time was 25 years. Thus, his qualifying service in the respondent Corporation on the date of his retirement was 32 years and 4 months, which was less than minimum qualifying service for requirement of grant of full pensionary benefits. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that since he was appointed beyond the age of 25 years by according relaxation in the age limit, which can be relaxed upto maximum of 5 years under Rule 27 of the Rules of 1995; and therefore, by virtue of Rule 27, he was entitled for addition to his service qualifying for superannuation pension for a period not exceeding one-fourth of the length of his service or the actual period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeded twenty-eight years, or a period of five years, whichever is less as contemplated under Rule 27 of the Rules of 1995.

In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondent Corporation has filed its counter-affidavit pleading that the age of the petitioner at the time of recruitment on 20th October, 1962 as Class-II (Development Officer) in the Corporation, was 25 years 7 months and 25 days as his date of birth according to the office record, is 25th February, 1937. It is further pleaded that for appointment to the post of Development Officer, the minimum age limit is 18 years, but there was no upper age limit and therefore, any relaxation accorded to the petitioner at the time of initial appointment with the Corporation simply did not arise. Rule 27 of the Rules of 1995 has been carved out for addition to qualifying service, in special circumstances, subject to fulfillment of the conditions stipulated therein. Repelling the claim for addition to qualifying service, it is further pleaded by the respondent Corporation that the petitioner superannuated on 28th February, 1995, after having completed service of 32 years and 4 months. Since the petitioner is not eligible to add to his service qualifying for superannuation pension as per terms of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1995, which deals with such an addition to qualifying service in special circumstances, the writ application merits rejection.

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts has argued that the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Regulations of 1960'', for short), under Regulation 10 provides for appointment to the service of a person, who shall not be less than 18 or more than 25 years, provided the competent authority will have the discretion to relax or waive the limit wherever necessary. Therefore, the very fact that the petitioner was appointed to a post belonging to Class-II (Development Officer) after the age of 25 years; obviously the competent authority relaxed the age limit in his discretion and hence, the petitioner is entitled for addition to the qualifying service, the period of 8 months in terms of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1995, which would entitle him full pension treating his service as 33 years. In order to reinforce his contentions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the opinion of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Dharmalingam (supra).

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, Mr. Praveen Balwada, reiterating the pleaded stand in the counter-affidavit argued that the claim of the petitioner, in terms of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1995, is absolutely misconceived, misleading and contrary to the materials available on record much less in the face of mandate of Rule 27 itself as the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions stipulated therein. The learned counsel would further submit that a glance at Regulation 10 of the Regulations of 1960, would reveal that the age limit for appointment to the service of the respondent Corporation being not less than 18 or more than 25 years, is not applicable in the case of appointment to the post belonging to Class-II (Development Officer), so far as upper age limit is concerned. According to the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, the law declared by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Dharmalingam (supra), has no application to the present case as the intention underlining the provisions of Rule 30(1) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972, is to compensate the government servant for the time taken by him in securing the additional qualifications or experience, which are essential for appointment to the service or post. In the instant case at hand, the petitioner has not secured any additional qualifications or gained any experience essential for appointment to the service or post of Development Officer.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the materials available on record.

At the very threshold, it will be relevant to consider the text of Regulation 10 of the Regulations of 1960, which provides for age criterion for appointment to the service of the respondent Corporation, which reads thus:-

Age:

The age of a person at the time of his appointment to the service of the Corporation shall not be less than 18 or more than 25 years, provided that the competent authority will have the discretion to relax or waive the limit wherever necessary; provided also that in the case of appointments to posts belonging to Class II there shall be no upper age limit.

Since the claim of the petitioner is to be considered in the light of the mandate of the Pension Rules of 1995 notified on 28th June, 1995, Rule 36(6)(a) and Rule 27 are relevant, the text of these provisions read thus:-

Rule 35(6)(a) - An employee retiring before completing a qualifying service of 33 years, but after completing a qualifying service of 10 years, the amount of pension shall be proportionate to the amount of pension admissible under sub-rules (2) and (3).

Rule 27-"Addition to qualifying service in special circumstances-An employee shall be eligible to add to his service qualifying for superannuation pension (but not for any other class of pension) the actual period not exceeding one-fourth of the length of his service or the actual period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeded twenty-eight years, or a period of five years, whichever is less, if the service or post to which the employee is appointed is one-

(a) for which post-graduate research, or specialist qualification or experience in scientific, technological or professional fields is essential; and

(b) to which candidates of more than twenty-eight years of age are normally recruited; and

(c) for which the candidate was given age relaxation over and above the maximum age limit fixed by the Corporation on account of his possessing higher qualifications or experience:

Provided that this concession shall not be admissible to an employee unless his actual qualifying service at the time he quits the service in the Corporation is not less than ten years:

Provided further that this concession shall be admissible only if the recruitment rules in respect of the said service or post contain a specific provision that the service or post is one which carries the benefit of this rule

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was recruited in the respondent Corporation on 20th October, 1962 beyond the age of 25 years. A conjoint reading of Regulation 10 of the Regulations of 1960 and Rule 27 as well as Rule 35(6)(a) of the Pension Rules of 1995, would reveal that the petitioner was appointed on 20th October, 1962, and the maximum age of recruitment, under the Regulations of 1960, was 25 years. Further, there was no upper age limit provided for appointment to the post of Class-II (Development Officer). It is also not reflected from the materials available on record that the appointing authority extended any concession/relaxation in the upper age limit in the case of Class-II employees, more particularly in the case of the petitioner for his possession of higher qualification or experience. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner was not accorded any appointment as Development Officer beyond the normal age of recruitment and owing to possession of any professional qualification or experience, therefore, in such a fact situation, the mandate of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1995, is not attracted to the case of the petitioner.

The opinion of the Hon''ble Supreme Court referred to and relied upon in the case of S. Dharmalingam (supra), has no application to the instant case at hand as the Hon''ble Supreme Court in that case dealt with the issue of addition of qualifying service considering the intention underlining Rule 30 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

A glance at the text of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1995, would also reveal that the concession as stipulated under Rule 27 shall be admissible only if the recruitment rules in respect of the said service or post contains a specific provisions that the service or post is one which carries the benefit of Rule 27. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any such condition stipulated under the relevant recruitment rules with reference to the post of Development Officer.

For the reasons and discussions herein above, the writ petition is devoid of any substance and lacks in merits and therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.