Delhi High Court
P.C.Bhatnagar vs Air India Ltd & Anr on 29 November, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: November 29, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 10634/2017 & CM No. 43537/2017
P.C.BHATNAGAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate
versus
AIR INDIA LTD & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Lalit Bhasin, Ms. Ratna
Dwivedi Dhingra and Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh,
Advocates for respondent-Air India
Mr. Kamal Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.
2-LIC of India
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. In this petition, the claim put forth by petitioner is for pension
under the Indian Airlines Employees' Self Contributory Superannuation
Pension Scheme floated on 1st August, 2000. Petitioner had made
representations to seek pension under the aforesaid Scheme and first
respondent vide Communication of 24th October, 2014 (Annexure P-2)
had informed petitioner that his deposit of `1,41,169/- to purchase the
annuity in his favour through LIC could not be undertaken due to
unavoidable financial circumstances and change of Scheme from "Benefit
Defined" to "Contribution Defined" on 4th March, 2003 and the
contribution made by petitioner with interest thereon i.e. `1,74,326/- was
deposited with respondent-LIC on 1st April, 2003 with a provision that
this amount can be utilized either for purchase of annuity or refund of the
deposit to petitioner.
2. As per impugned Communication (Annexure P-2), respondent-LIC
had refunded the aforesaid amount of `1,74,326/- to petitioner on 1st
February, 2005. Petitioner's claim to interest on the aforesaid refunded
amount from 1st April, 2003 to 1st February, 2005 was declined as
respondent-LIC had not provided any interest on this amount and first
respondent had intimated petitioner vide Communication (Annexure P-3)
that the matter for payment of interest on such deposits is being pursued
with respondent-LIC.
3. Upon notice, learned counsel for respondent-LIC informs that
petitioner had not addressed any communication to respondent-LIC to
seek interest for the period from 1st April, 2003 to 1st February, 2005 nor
had he sought its refund and now, after one decade, petitioner cannot
belatedly claim interest for the aforesaid period on the refunded amount.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the occasion to do so
had not arisen because respondent-LIC had not intimated petitioner that
the refund could be claimed and had it been so done, then petitioner
would have sought the refund in the year 2003 itself.
5. Since first respondent in its Communication of 26 th December,
2014 (Annexure P-3) has taken up the matter with respondent-LIC
regarding payment of interest, which totals to `6,88,99,580/- in case of
similarly placed persons, like petitioner, and the approval for
disbursement from LICs Central Office is awaited, therefore, it is deemed
appropriate to call upon respondent- LIC to look into this matter on
priority as and when representation is received from petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a concise
Representation would be made to respondent-LIC within two weeks to
claim the interest for the aforesaid period. If such a representation is
received from petitioner, then respondent-LIC shall decide such a
representation with reasons duly supported by record, within a period of
six weeks from the date of receiving of such representation.
7. On the insistence of learned counsel for respondent-LIC, it is
clarified that respondent-LIC will not be bound by the quantum of
interest as disclosed in the Communication (Annexure P-3) of the first
respondent.
8. With aforesaid directions and clarification, this petition and the
application are disposed of.
9. Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 29, 2017
s
