Karnataka High Court
Sri.B.K. Kalaghatagi vs The Secretary on 2 March, 2021
Author: Sreenivas Harish ,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2 N D DAY OF MARCH, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT APPEAL NO.100013/2020 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI B.K.KALAGHATAGI,
AGE: 91 YEARS,
OCC: RETD.BRANCH MANAGER,
LIC OF INDIA, R/O NO.32,
SHANTI COLONY,
VISHWESHWAR NAGAR,
HUBBALLI-580 032.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.A.SONDUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
UNION OF INDIA,
PARLIAMENT HOUSE,
NEW DELHI-110001.
2. THE CHAIRMAN,
LIC OF INDIA,
CENTRAL OFFICE,
NARIMAN POINT,
MUMBAI-400001.
:2:
3. THE ZONAL MANAGER,
LIC OF INDIA, SAIFABAD,
HYDERABAD-500001.
4. THE SENIOR DIVISION MANAGER,
LIC OF INDIA, JEEVAN PRAKASH,
RODHA ROAD, DHARWAD-580001.
5. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (P),
LIC OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE,
"YOGAKSHEMA" JEEVAN BIMA MARG,
P.B.NO.19953, MUMBAI-400001.
6. THE SECRETARY (EMPLOYEES RELATIONS)
LIC OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE,
"YOGAKSHEMA" JEEVAN BIMA MARG,
P.B.NO.19953, MUMBAI-400001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.B.KANAVI, CGSC FOR R1;
SRI NARAYAN V.YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2019 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH IN W.P.NO.102363/2016 (S-RES) AND
ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
:3:
JUDGMENT
Heard the appellant's counsel. The appellant is writ
petitioner. He was working as Agent of the Life Insurance
Corporation of India and that he was appointed as Field
Officer on 21.01.1960. He superannuated on 01.06.1987.
On 26.06.1995, LIC Pension Rules were given into effect
retrospectively from 01.11.1993. According to these rules,
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 thirty-three years would be
entitled to full pension and to have this benefit, he
claimed the benefit under Rule 27. But his representation
was rejected on 21.05.1996 vide Annexure-D. Then after
lapse of twenty years, the appellant made one more
representation as per Annexure-C2 on 26.12.2014. This
was rejected vide Annexure-D1 dated 20.01.2015.
Thereafter the appellant preferred the writ petition.
2. The learned single judge dismissed the writ
petition by observing that the cause of action arose on
21.05.1996 when the appellant's representation was
rejected for the first time. The subsequent rejection of the
representation was nothing but reiteration of the earlier
order dated 21.05.1996 and therefore the subsequent
rejection did not give rise to fresh cause of action
entitling the petitioner-appellant to approach the court in
writ jurisdiction. Thus having observed that there was
laches on the part of the appellant in filing the writ
petition, the learned single judge also observed in Para-8
of his order that the appellant was not entitled to claim
benefit under Rule 27 because of the reason that the post
to which he was appointed did not require a special
qualification, all that was required was passed in
matriculation.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri
S.A.Sondur submits that learned single judge has not
applied his mind for rejecting the writ petition. It is his
argument that the appellant was entitled to claim benefit
under Rule 27 for adding five years weightage for claiming
full pension. Cause of action is recurring in the sense that
so long as the appellant does not get actual pension that
could be paid to him if additional weightage of five years
is given to him, the cause of action keeps recurring. In
support of his arguments, he places reliance on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India V/s Tarsem Singh (AIR online 2008 SC 68).
4. We have perused the impugned order and also
the ruling cited by the learned counsel for the appellant.
It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in
the 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. With great respect,
we have to state that this principle cannot be applied in
the facts and circumstance of this case. The appellant was
an LIC agent and in the background of his experience as
an agent, he was appointed as a field officer. The
prescribed qualification for recruiting a field officer was
matriculation. It does not require any special qualification
as envisaged in Rule 27. This is the main reason for the
learned single judge to come to a conclusion that the
appellant was not entitled to take the benefit of Rule 27.
We are in full agreement with the findings of the learned
single judge.
5. Delay does matter in this case. The first
representation of the appellant was rejected on
21.05.1996. He did not take action immediately. It
appears that just to gain a ground for filing writ petition;
he made representation in the year 2015. It is difficult to
hold that the subsequent representation would give a
cause of action to the appellant to file writ petition.
Learned single judge has given cogent reasons to dismiss
the writ petition on this ground. Therefore, we find that
there are no merits to admit this appeal. Hence, the
appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE
CLK
