Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Bisa Chandra Sekhar vs The Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 18 September, 2025
APHC010604532023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
m AT AMARAVATI
a (Special Original Jurisdiction) j
THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 31179 OF 2023
Between:
Sri Bisa Chandra Sekhar, S/o late Sri Bisa Guru Murthy Caste Bentho
Oriya(ST), retd.Administrative Officer/AO Lie of India at Amalapuram, West
Godavari, r/o D.No. 50-94-5, shantipuram dwarakanagar opp sbi flat no. G-2,
akshya enclave, Visakhapatnam urban AP 530016
...PETITIONER
AND
1. The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Yogakshemam, Jeevan Bhima
Marg, PB No. 19953, Mumbai -400021 Reptd by its Chairman Sri
Siddhartha Mohanty
2. The Life Insurance Corporation of India, South Central Zonal Office,
Opp. Secretariat, Near Telugu talli flyover, Saifabad, Hyderabad -
500063 Reptd. by its Zonal Manager, Sri L K Shamsunder
3. The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan
Godavari buildings Morampudi Road, Boomuru village
Rajamahendravaram City and district 533107 reptd by its Senior
divisional Manager, Sri B.Prasada Rao
4. The State of AP, reptd by its Principal Secretary, Dept, of Tribal Welfare
Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi village Amaravathy maridal Guntur
district
5. The District Collector, Srikakulam 532001
6. The Tahsildar, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District 532 203
/ ...RESPONDENTS
/
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue an Order, proceeding or a writ of mandamus declaring the
action of the respondent no.1 in issuing the impugned letter vide Ex.P.1 Ref
No.P and IR/2023-24 dt. 31-7-2023 to the petitioner and not releasing the
pensionary benefits to the petitioner though he retired on 31-7-2023 and other
benefits from the 1®^ respondent and asking the petitioner to get process of
verification completed with the state government regards his community
certificate, thus depriving the petitioner from claiming his pension post his
retirement, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequentially direct
the respondent nol to forthwith release all the pensionary benefits of the
petitioner to the petitioner and thereafter to direct the respondents nos. 1 to 3
to regularly release monthly pension every month to the petitioner.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
issue an order or to direct the respondent no.1 to forthwith release the
pensionary benefits of the petitioner to the petitioner.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. S. BHATT
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3:SRI SREEDHAR VALIVETI .SC
FOR Lie
Counsel for the Respondent No.4:GP FOR SERVICES-II
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 &6: GP FOR SERVICES-I
The Court made the following order:
APHC010604532023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 31179/2023
Between:
1.SRI BISA CHANDRA SEKHAR, S/0 LATE SRI BISA GURU
MURTHY CASTE BENTHO ORIYA(ST). RETD ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER/AO LIE OF INDIA AT AMALAPURAM, WEST
GODAVARI, R/0 D.NO. 50-94-5, SHANTIPURAM
DWARAKANAGAR OPP SBI FLAT NO. G-2, AKSHYA ENCLAVE
VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN AP 530016
...PETITIONER
AND
1.THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
YOGAKSHEMAM, JEEVAN BHIMA MARG, PB NO. 19953,
MUMBAI -400021 REPTD BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRI SIDDHARTHA
MOHANTY
2.THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, SOUTH
CENTRAL ZONAL OFFICE, OPP. SECRETARIAT, NEAR TELUGU
TALLI FLYOVER, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD -500063 REPTD BY
ITS ZONAL MANAGER, SRI L K SHAMSUNDER
3.THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL
OFFICE, JEEVAN GODAVARI BUILDINGS, MORAMPUDI ROAD,
BOOMURU VILLAGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM CITY AND
DISTRICT 533107 REPTD BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL
MANAGER, SRI B.PRASADA RAO
4.THE STATE OF AP, REPTD BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPT OF TRIBAL WELFARE SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS,
VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE AMARAVATHY MARIDAL GUNTUR
T
district
5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM 532001
\
6. THE TAHSILDAR
532 203 TEKKALI MANDAL SRIKAKUUM district
-RESPONDENTCS):
praying
the
2023 ,0 me Petitione; anfno, releaslno m/"''
the petitioner though he retired on 31 7 2n?3 benefits to
the 1st respondent and Tskinn thl ,^
verification completed with the state^ Process of
community certificate thus deorivino mi government regards his
pension post his retirement as iZar-hf ""^
and consequentially direct the resmL unconstitutional
all the pensionary Ms If meTn f°rt''«'th release
and
monthly pension
jA NO: 1 OF 9no^
every month to the petitioner a^d toregularly release
' pass
Petition under Section
circumstances stated in the affidfiif rZi^- 'he
the High Court may be pleased nZ! af Petition,
the respondent no.i to forthwith^release mr*^^ order or to direct
the petitioner to the petitioner and to ''®"®fits of
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.SS BHATT
Counsel for the Respondent{S):
1GP FOR SERVICES I
2.GP FOR SERVICES II
3.SREEDHAR VALIVETI
The Court made the following:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
W.P.No.31179 of 2023
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed declaring the action of Respondent No.1 in issuing the impugned letter vide Ref:No.P&IR/2023-24 dated 31.07.2023 to the Petitioner and not releasing the pensionary benefits though he retired on 31.07.2023 as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as under;
The Petitioner belongs to Bentho Oriya community i.e. a Scheduled Tribe and a certificate to that effect was issued by the Tahsildar, Tekkali Mandal on 25.01.1977 to the father of the Petitioner. On the basis of the said caste certificate, the father of the Petitioner was appointed in Railways. Basing on the caste certificate of his father, the Petitioner was also issued caste certificate on 23.01.1978. The Petitioner was appointed as Trainee Assistant in the Respondent-Corporation on 22.08.1991. Later, he was promoted as Assistant Administrative Officer in 1999.
Subsequently, he was promoted as Administrative Officer in 2016. After attaining the age of superannuation. Petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2023. As there is dispute with regard to the genuineness of the caste certificate, the pensionary benefits of the 2 m Petitioner were not settled vide impugned order dated 31.07.2023. It is stated in the impugned proceedings that the terminal benefits due to the Petitioner are subject to the verification of the genuineness of the caste certificate of the Petitioner. Hence, this writ petition is filed.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents, the factum of appointment and retirement of the Petitioner in the cadre of Administrative Officer are not in dispute. It is stated that complaints were received from representatives of All India SC/ST Association, Lie of India SC/ST Association, LIC employee Welfare Association, South Central Zone SC/ST & Buddhist Welfare Association etc., that the Petitioner had obtained employment by submitting false caste certificate.
After receipt of the complaints, the Respondent- Corporation had pursued about the genuineness of the caste certificate and the counter affidavit details the communications issued to various authorities by the Respondent-Corporation, It is also stated that if the caste certificate of the Petitioner found to be a fabricated one, the appointment of the Petitioner would be void ab initio and the Petitioner cannot be given any retirement benefits and it is on that ground, the Respondent-Corporation has deferred 3 payment of amount till finalization of the caste certificate in favour of the Petitioner.
4. Heard Sri S.S.Bhatt, learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-ll and learned standing counsel for the Respondent-Corporation.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner has retired from service on 31.07.2023 on attaining the age of superannuation and no disciplinary cases are initiated against the Petitioner. In the absence of any such proceedings, withholding of the retirement benefits of the Petitioner is wholly irrational and de hors the service conditions as applicable to the employees of the Respondent-Corporation. Learned counsel further contended that terminal benefits are right of the Petitioner and the same cannot be withheld on account of some third party complaints, Learned counsel further submits that the genuineness of the caste certificate of the Petitioner has been referred to District level scrutiny committee and the same is pending.
6. Learned standing counsel for the Corporation would submit that the Respondent-Corporation has been earnestly pursuing the concerned authorities seeking for genuineness of the caste certificate. It is further stated that if the caste certificate is found to be not genuine, the very appointment would be declared as void ab initio and the Petitioner cannot seek advantage of any benefit arising \ out of the employment on the basis of such fabricated document.
7. Heard the respective counsel.
8. Firstly, the Petitioner retired on 31.07.2023 and the Respondent-Corporation is unable to point out under what Rule the Petitioner's service benefits are withheld after retirement in the absence of any criminal case or departmental enquiry. The Rule 77(5) Lie of India staff Rules, 1960 provides for withholding/fo rfeiting pension when a penalty of dismissal. compulsory retirement, removal etc., is imposed. The Rule 77(5) is extracted below;
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-rules-
(i) where the penalty of dismissal is imposed on an employee for any act involving violence against the management or other employees or any riotous or disorderly behaviour in or near the place of employment, the gratuity payable to him shall stand wholly forfeited; and
(ii) where the penalty of compulsory retirement, removal from service or dismissal is imposed on an employee for any act involving the Corporation financial loss, the gratuity payable to him shall stand forfeited to the extent of such loss.
5The emphasised part of the above Rule is applicable only when there is violence against the corporation or when there is financial loss to the corporation, which is not the case here. In the absence of enabling power to withhold retirement benefits, there is absolutely no justification on the part of the Respondent-Corpor ation to withhold retirement benefits of the Petitioner merely because the caste certificate issued in the year 1978 is doubted at this length of time.
10. In a similar fact scenario, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava\ reiterated that that the retirement benefits are property rights recognised under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and the same cannot be denied except in accordance with law. The paragraphs 16 and 17 thereof is extracted below;
"16. The fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is recognised as a right in "property". Article 300-A of the Constitution of India reads as under:
"300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.--No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. "
Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot be deprived of / '(2013) 12 see 210 6 m this pension without the authority of law, which is the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant to \ take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced. "
17. It hardly needs to be emphasised that the executive instructions are not having statutory character and, therefore, cannot be termed as "law" within the meaning of the aforesaid Article 300-A. On the basis of such a circular, which is not having force of law, the appellant cannot withhold even a part of pension or gratuity. w'e noticed above, so far as statutory Rules are concerned, there is no provision for withholding pension or gratuity in the given situation. Had there been any such provision in these Rules, the position would have been different.
11. A similar view was also expressed in Hira Lai v. State of Bihar^,.The paragraph 22 is extracted below-
22. It is well settled that the right to pension cannot be taken away by a mere executive flat or administrative instruction. Pension and gratuity are not mere bounties, or given out of generosity by the employer. An employee earns ese benefits by virtue of his long, continuous, faithful and unblemished service."
12. The retirement benefits is a social welfare measure to those who in the sunshine days of their life relentlessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would ' (2020) 4 see 346 7 not be left in lurch. The petitioner having retired in the year 2023 after 32 years of spotless service cannot be left without any retirement benefits as he would struggle to lead a dignified life.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed with following directions;
(i) The Respondents are directed to release the Retirements benefits to the Petitioner.
(ii) The time for compliance of the above direction is (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.
Sd/- T. SRINIVASA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Principal Secretary, Dept, of Tribal Welfare, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi village, Amaravathi mamdal, Guntur District.
2. The District Collector, Srikakulam 532001
3. The Tahsildar, Tekkali mandal Srikakulam district 532 203
4. One CC to Sri S. S. Bhatt, Advocate [OPUC]
5. One CC to Sri Sreedhar Valiveti, SC for LIC[OPUC]
6. Two CCs to GP for Services-1, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]
7. Two CCs to GP for Services-ll High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]
8. Two CD Copies.
ssb HIGH COURT \ DATED:18/09/2025 ORDER WP No. 31179 OF 2023 5 O OCT 2025 m Co Current Section ^ J ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS