Telangana High Court
Smt. Korra Lalitha vs The Chairman on 24 October, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT APPEAL No.215 of 2024
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.6803 of 2021, dated 12.01.2024.
2. Heard Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel appearing for appellants and Sri Surya Karan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri K.Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel on record for respondents.
3. The brief facts of the case that led to filing of the present Writ Appeal are that appellant Nos.1 and 2 herein are the wife and second son of late K.Bhadru (hereinafter referred to 'deceased employee'), respectively, who was an employee of the respondents-Corporation and worked as A.A.O., in LIC of India, Narsampet Branch. While working so, in the year 2016, the deceased employee has suffered Hemorrhagic brain stroke and his left side of the body was paralyzed and he was bedridden; that as AKS,J & LNA,J WA No.215 of 2024 2 he was unable to perform his office duties, he submitted representation on 31.03.2018 to allow him to retire on medically unfit ground and to provide employment to his second son i.e., 2nd appellant. The 3rd respondent vide letter dated 20.06.2018, as directed by the 2nd respondent, informed the deceased employee that his request for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) with conditions cannot be entertained as per Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (for short 'Regulations, 1960') and the same was acknowledged by the deceased employee on 26.06.2018.
3.1. Later, deceased employee made another application dated 28.06.2018 for voluntary retirement (VRS) on medically unfit ground. In response to the same, he was informed to appear for an Exit Interview on 12.11.2018 at Narsampet as well as for medical examination and accordingly, he attended exit interview. However, as no orders have been passed by the respondents, the deceased employee appealed to the first respondent on 13.01.2020 to consider his case for VRS on medical grounds and to provide compassionate appointment to appellant No.2. Upon which, the 3rd AKS,J & LNA,J WA No.215 of 2024 3 respondent passed order dated 11.03.2020 stating that voluntary retirement of the deceased employee was deemed to have been accepted by the authority w.e.f. 28.09.2018 under Regulation 19(2A)(b) of LIC Staff Regulations 1960 and Rule 31(2) and 31(4) of LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995, and the same was communicated to the petitioner and was acknowledged by the deceased employee on 13.03.2020 and thereafter, the employee expired on 28.04.2020.
3.2. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.03.2020, the appellants herein filed W.P.No.6803 of 2021 and learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated 12.01.2024 dismissed the said writ petition with liberty to the appellants to submit valid discharge form(s) to the respondents for settlement of retirement benefits, to which they are eligible, in accordance with law, if not already received. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Appeal is filed.
4. On behalf of the respondents, counter-affidavit is filed, reiterating the contentions averred in their earlier counter- affidavit filed in W.P.No.6803 of 2021, stating that the deceased employee had submitted an application dated 28.06.2018 to permit him to AKS,J & LNA,J WA No.215 of 2024 4 retire on medical grounds; that since the VRS is on medical grounds, deceased employee was called upon to attend for medical examination and also to an Exit Interview; that upon such examination and on considering his medical status, the respondent- authority vide letter dated 11.03.2020 has accepted his VRS w.e.f. 28.09.2018 under Section 19(2)(A)(b) of the Regulations, 1960 and Rules 31 (2) and 31(4) of LIC Employees Pension Rules and the same was received and acknowledged by the deceased employee on 13.03.2020; and that thereafter he died on 28.04.2020.
4.1. It is further averred that the allegation of appellants that the deceased employee submitted application dated 28.06.2018 seeking to permit him to retire as per Rule 19(3) of the Regulations, 1960, is false and in fact, the deceased employee vide his letter dated 05.08.2018 applied for compulsory retirement under Regulation 19(3) of the Regulations, 1960 and requested to treat his application for VRS as if under compulsory retirement and also for appointment of his son on compassionate grounds. It is averred that deceased employee cannot request for compulsory AKS,J & LNA,J WA No.215 of 2024 5 retirement quoting Regulation 19(3) of Regulations, 1960, since said Regulation gives the right to the respondent-Corporation and not to an employee. Therefore, the request made by the deceased employee to retire him as per Regulation 19(3) of the Regulations, 1960, is not valid as per the Regulations of respondent- Corporation.
5. Learned counsel for appellants has contended that the 3rd respondent is not competent authority to issue the proceedings dated 11.03.2020 accepting the request of the deceased employee to retire, that too after two years, with retrospective effect under Regulation 19(2) of the Regulations, 1960, even though the deceased employee requested for VRS under Regulation 19(3) of the Regulations, 1960 i.e., voluntary retirement from service (VRS) on medically unfit ground.
5.1. Learned counsel further contended that learned single Judge of this Court erred in dismissing the writ petition on the sole ground that deceased employee did not choose to challenge the order dated 20.06.2018 stating that the request for VRS with conditions cannot be entertained; that learned single Judge failed to AKS,J & LNA,J WA No.215 of 2024 6 notice the difference between the general voluntary retirement and VRS on medically unfit ground; that without appreciating the above facts, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition and therefore, he prayed this Court to set aside the impugned order.
6. Per contra, learned senior counsel for respondents contended that pursuant to application dated 28.06.2018 submitted by the deceased employee, he was subjected to medical examination and exit interview; that taking into consideration his medical status and exit interview, the competent authority passed order dated 11.03.2020 accepting the voluntary retirement of the deceased employee on medically unfit ground w.e.f. 28.09.2018 under Rule 19(2)(A)(b) of the Regulations, 1960 and Rule-31(2) and 31(4) of LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 and the same was communicated to the deceased employee vide letter dated 11.03.2020, which was acknowledged by him on 13.03.2020. He further contended that the appellants were advised to submit a valid discharge form/s to settle the eligible retirement benefits to them vide letters dated 21.03.2020, 10.06.2020, 14.08.2020, 14.10.2020, 13.11.2020 and 10.12.2020, however, the same were AKS,J & LNA,J WA No.215 of 2024 7 returned with an endorsement 'Party refused'. He further contended that by considering the facts and circumstances of the case in a proper perspective, the learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants and in this Writ Appeal no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned order and finally, prayed to dismiss the writ appeal. Consideration:
7. In the light of the rival contentions of both the parties, the point that falls for consideration is whether the appellant No.2 is entitled for compassionate appointment consequent upon the voluntary retirement of his father on medically unfit ground.
8. A perusal of the record would disclose that initially, the deceased employee submitted an application on 31.03.2018 seeking to allow him to retire on medical grounds and to provide employment to his second son i.e., 2nd appellant herein, however, the respondent-Corporation informed the deceased employee that his request cannot be entertained. Consequently, he submitted another application on 20.06.2018 for VRS on medically unfit ground and the said application was processed and the deceased AKS,J & LNA,J WA No.215 of 2024 8 employee was subjected to medical examination and he also attended the exit interview, as informed by the respondents, in accordance with the Regulations of the respondent-Corporation.
However, subsequently, as no orders have been passed, the deceased employee made a representation on 13.01.2020 to the 1st respondent to consider his case for compulsory retirement on medical grounds and also to provide compassionate appointment to his second son and further, sought medical, insurance coverage, etc. Thereafter, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order, dated 11.03.2020, and the voluntary retirement of the deceased employee was accepted w.e.f. 28.09.2018 under Regulation 19(2)(A)(b) of the Regulations, 1960 and the same was received by the deceased employee on 13.03.2020 and he expired on 28.04.2020. The appellants herein filed W.P.No.6803 of 2021 challenging the order dated 11.03.2020.
9. As stated supra, Writ Petition No.6803 of 2021 filed by the appellants was dismissed by the learned single Judge vide order dated 12.01.2024 by observing that (i) application dated 31.03.2018 submitted by the deceased employee for permitting AKS,J & LNA,J WA No.215 of 2024 9 him to retire on medical grounds and also to provide employment to his son, was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 20.06.2018, however, the said order was not challenged by the deceased employee; and (ii) that the order dated 11.03.2020 was passed pursuant to his representation dated 28.06.2018 submitted by the deceased employee seeking to allow him to retire on medically unfit ground.
10. Learned counsel for appellants specifically contended that the order dated 11.03.2020 was passed by the 3rd respondent, who has neither power nor authority to accept the VRS application of the deceased employee on medically unfit ground, that too, with retrospective effect. He further contended that the request of the deceased employee was accepted under Regulation 19(2) of the Regulations, 1960, though the request was made for VRS under Regulation 19(3) of the Regulations, 1960, on medically unfit ground.
11. For better appreciation of the case, it is appropriate to refer to Regulations 19(2), 19(2A)(b)(i) and 19(3) of the Regulations, 1960, which read as under:
AKS,J & LNA,J WA No.215 of 2024 10 "Reg.19. Superannuation and Retirement:
(1) ...
(2) An employee belonging to Class-I or Class-II appointed to the service of the Corporation on or after 1st September, 1956, shall retire on completion of 60 years of age, but the competent authority may, if it is of the opinion that it is in the interest of the Corporation to do so, direct such employee to retire on completion of 50 years of age or at any time thereafter on giving him three months' notice or salary in lieu thereof.
Xxx (2A) (a) xxxx (2A) (b) (i) Notwithstanding the provisions of Clause (a), an employee governed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 may be permitted to retire at any time after he has completed twenty years of qualifying service, by giving notice of not less than ninety days, in writing, to the appointing authority:
Provided that this sub-clause shall not apply to an employee who is on deputation unless after having been transferred or having returned to India, he has resumed charge on the post in India and has served for a period of not less than one year:
Provided further that this sub-clause shall not apply to an employee who seeks retirement from service for being absorbed permanently in an autonomous body or a public sector undertaking to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement.
AKS,J & LNA,J WA No.215 of 2024 11
(ii) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-
clause (1) of clause (b) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority:
Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.
....
(3) Nothing contained in the foregoing sub-rules shall affect the right of the appointing authority to retire an employee without notice or pay in lieu thereof on his being certified by a medical examiner, to be nominated for the purpose by the appointing authority, as being incapacitated for further continuous service either due to continued illness or accident."
12. From the above, it is evident that as per Regulation 19(2) of the Regulations, 1960, the competent authority may, in the interest of Corporation, direct an employee belonging to Class-I or Class-II to retire on completion of 50 years of age or at any time thereafter on giving him three months notice or salary in lieu thereof. As per Regulation 19(3) of the Regulations, 1960, the appointing authority is empowered to retire an employee without notice or pay in lieu thereof on his being certified by a medical examiner as being AKS,J & LNA,J WA No.215 of 2024 12 incapacitated for further continuous service either due to continued illness or accident.
13. It is also relevant to refer Rule 31(2) & (4) of the LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995, which reads as under:
"Rule 31 (2). The notice of the voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority;
Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.
.....
(4) An employee, who has elected to retire under this rule and has given necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority;
Provided that the request of such withdrawal shall be made before intended date of his retirement."
14. Admittedly, in the instant case, the deceased employee submitted letter dated 31.03.2018 seeking to allow him to retire on medically unfit ground, however, the same was not entertained by the respondent-Corporation and thereafter, the deceased employee AKS,J & LNA,J WA No.215 of 2024 13 made another application dated 28.06.2018 for voluntary retirement on medically unfit grounds. Pursuant thereto, the deceased employee was subjected to medical examination and exit interview on 12.11.2018, which he attended. However, as no further steps have been taken by the respondent-corporation and in view of his critical medical condition, the deceased employee has appealed to the 1st respondent i.e., Chairman, LIC of India, on 13.01.2020 with a request to consider his case for VRS on medically unfit ground and to provide compassionate appointment to his son and also to extend the medical claim, insurance coverage etc. Surprisingly, the 3rd respondent passed impugned order on 11.03.2020 accepting the request of the deceased employee for voluntary retirement with retrospective effect i.e., from 28.09.2018 by referring to Regulation 19(2A)(b) of the Regulations, 1960.
15. It is borne out by record that pursuant to application dated 28.06.2018, the deceased employee was subjected to medical examination and exit interview on 12.11.2018, which were attended to by him.
AKS,J & LNA,J WA No.215 of 2024 14
16. It is pertinent to mention that deceased employee submitted application for voluntary retirement on medically unfit grounds under Regulation 19(3) of the Regulations, 1960, whereas the said application was accepted by 3rd respondent under Regulation 19(2) thereof, that too, with retrospective effect. As mentioned supra, as per Regulation 19(3) of the Regulations, 1960, the appointing authority is empowered to retire an employee, if he is incapacitated for further continuous service either due to continued illness or accident on being certified by a medical examiner, to be nominated by the corporation for specific purpose. Further, no reasons have been assigned by the 3rd respondent in the order dated 11.03.2020 as to acceptance of request of the deceased employee for VRS on medically unfit ground, under Regulation 19(2)(A)(b) of the Regulations, 1960, with retrospective effect from 28.09.2018.
17. Even during hearing of the present Writ Appeal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has fairly conceded that the request of the deceased employee for retirement on medically unfit ground can be accepted only from the date of acceptance of such request i.e., 11.03.2020.
AKS,J & LNA,J WA No.215 of 2024 15
18. Insofar as the contention raised by the respondents that the order dated 20.06.2018 was not challenged, it is pertinent to mention that the said order was served on the deceased employee on 13.03.2020 and he expired on 28.04.2020. Admittedly, the deceased employee was undergoing treatment for hemorrhagic brain stroke and was bedridden. Therefore, the contention of the learned senior counsel that the rejection order dated 20.06.2018 was not challenged is untenable in the light of the medical condition of the deceased employee and also the fact that he expired within a period of 1½ months from the date of receipt of the said order.
19. Here, it is apt to refer to paragraph-7 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is specifically mentioned that the application dated 28.06.2018 submitted by deceased employee for VRS was accepted taking into consideration his medical status and upon recommendations of the Exit interviewer and accordingly, order dated 11.03.2020, was passed by the 3rd respondent, however, no explanation has been AKS,J & LNA,J WA No.215 of 2024 16 offered with regard to acceptance of request of deceased employee with retrospective effect from 28.09.2018.
20. In the light of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that having subjected the deceased employee to medical examination and exit interview on 12.11.2018, the respondent-Corporation ought to have taken a decision on the application of the deceased employee for VRS on medically unfit ground within a reasonable time. However, the application was accepted by the 3rd respondent on 11.03.2020 i.e., about 1½ years after the date of Exit interview, that too, with retrospective effect from 28.09.2018, without assigning any reasons whatsoever thereform and therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the same is per se improper and illegal.
21. Thus, there are clear laches and default on the part of the respondent-Corporation in processing the application made by the deceased employee for VRS on medically unfit ground. Further, respondent-corporation has committed error in accepting VRS application by referring to Regulation-19(2A)(b) of the AKS,J & LNA,J WA No.215 of 2024 17 Regulations, 1960, which has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case.
22. Therefore, in the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 11.03.2020 passed by the 3rd respondent is unsustainable in the eye of law. The learned single Judge has failed to appreciate the case from that angle and has passed the impugned order, which, for the reasons aforesaid, is arbitrary.
23. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The request of the deceased employee for retirement on medically unfit ground shall be treated as accepted on 11.03.2020 i.e., the date on which the order accepting the request of the petitioner was passed by the 3rd respondent, and not on '28.03.2018' as specified in the order dated 11.03.2020. Consequently, the respondents are directed to release all the retirement benefits of the deceased employee to the appellants, to which they are entitled to, by treating the voluntary retirement of the deceased employee on medically unfit ground as '11.03.2020'. Further, the respondent-Corporation is directed to release all the AKS,J & LNA,J WA No.215 of 2024 18 retirement benefits, family pension, etc., to the appellants with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the death of the deceased employee till the date of payment.
24. Further, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as narrated supra, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if the respondent-Corporation considers the possibility of providing compassionate appointment to the 2nd appellant, if the Regulations, 1960, so provides.
25. The respondent-Corporation shall comply with the above directions within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
25. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 24 .10.2024 KKM/dr