(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI) 1. Present Letters Patent Appeal is filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 27.12.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition in limine.
2. Learned Advocate Mr Kishore Paul with Mr G T Parikh for the appellant-original petitioner is heard in detail. Learned Advocate Mr P S Patel with Mr H M Bhagat for the respondent is heard for respondent-LIC i.e. respondents No.2 to 4 and Learned Standing Counsel Mr Shakeel Qureshi is heard for respondent-Union of India.
3. The facts giving rise to the present litigation are set out in the list of events. The husband of the present appellant was serving with Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'LIC'). On 30.9.1991 he retired after putting in 40 years' of service on attaining the age of superannuation. The LIC introduced a pension scheme covering all the employees who were in service on and after 1.1.1996. The scheme was to come in force with effect from 1.11.1993. Incidentally, the Notification of the scheme was issued on 28.6.1995 and just five days prior thereto husband of the present appellant died. It was in this circumstance that the appellant-original petitioner was not in position to do the needful in the matter. The LIC, on the appellant-original petitioner making a representation, made an offer to the petitioner-appellant by order dated 20.12.1995. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that this letter was received by the appellant on 23.12.1995 and as was mentioned in the letter, the appellant was asked to refund a total sum of Rs. 1,49,898.60 ps. and this refund was to be made on or before 25.12.1995. Thus the appellant had only two days' time to refund this amount. The offer was to the effect that in the event the appellant refunds this amount, she will be entitled to get pension w.e.f. 24.6.1995 i.e. the date next to the sad demise of her husband. It was mentioned in the letter that for the period from 24.6.1995 to 29.9.1996 the appellant will get an amount @ Rs. 1,515/- per month and from 30.9.1996 she will be entitled to get pension @ Rs. 758/- per month. The appellant could not refund that amount as the time allowed was too short to arrange for the refund of the amount. The appellant, therefore, made a representation which came to be negatived. The appellant then approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.920 of 1997 which came to be heard and disposed of by this Court (Coram: S K Keshote, J. (As His Lordship then was) by order dated 20.9.1998. The learned Judge was pleased to direct the LIC to consider the case of the petitioner without insisting for the refund of the amount.
4. The LIC, after considering the same negatived the request. The appellant-petitioner then approached this court for revival of the petition. The request was granted and the petition was revived. After the revival the petition was allowed by order dated 1.4.2004. The appellant then made a representation to the LIC as was contemplated in the judgment and order. As the appellant did not hear anything from LIC, the appellant sent a reminder. The Assistant Secretary (Office Service/Pension) of LIC issued a letter to the appellant granting family pension in terms of the contents of letter dated 20.12.1995. By that letter the consent of the appellant was sought for which was given by letter dated 20.8.2004.
5. While the appellant-petitioner was waiting for the pension amount, she received a shock by receiving letter dated 13.11.2004 from the Zonal Manager, LIC of India, Mumbai by which the earlier letter dated 16.8.2004 was withdrawn. The ground for withdrawal of that letter was that LIC has no power to relax any of the Pension Rules and that such power is only with the Central Government. The appellant-petitioner then made a detailed representation dated 21.11.2004 to the Secretary, Union of India. As the petitioner-appellant did not hear anything for quite some time, she sent a reminder on 26.3.2005. Finally a reply came from Union of India dated 29.7.2005 saying “that the application of the petitioner is duly examined and it is not found appropriate to relax Rule 55A of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules 1995 in individual case”. LIC also replied through Assistant Secretary (Office Service/Pension) by letter dated 21.10.2005. It is after this reply that the petitioner-appellant was once again constrained to file the present petition being Special Civil Application No. 24441 of 2005 which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge in limine. It is against that order of the learned Single Judge that the present appeal is filed.
6. Learned Advocate for the appellant strenuously submitted that it is a misfortune or ill-luck of the old lady that she received the communication dated 20.12.1995 on 23.12.1995 and the time prescribed in that letter to refund the amount with interest was only upto 25.12.1995 and in that short time she could not arrange for the refund. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that it was never the case of the appellant that she was not willing to refund that amount but it was only the time factor which worked very harsh on the appellant and she could not arrange to refund that amount of Rs. 1,49,898.60 ps. with interest within the time prescribed. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the pension rules as the name suggests is 'for the benefit of the employees' and he submitted that even at the risk of being 'misunderstood', he be permitted to say that pension paid by the Government is not a charity done to the employee/s. It is in the nature of reward for putting in long meaningful service in the Government Department and, therefore the bureaucratic approach and the reply of Union of India that 'it is not appropriate to relax Rule 55-A in an individual case' is something which cannot stand the test of propriety because it being a piece of benevolent legislation which is meant for the good of the employees, unless the authority comes to the conclusion that there was either wilful negligence on the part of the employee or there were mala fides on the part of the employee necessary relaxation is required to be granted so as to see that the benefits of benevolent legislation flow to the employee concerned.
7. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the authority ought to have taken into consideration the following important aspects of the matter. (1) the Scheme was declared by Notification dated 28.6.1995. It was brought into force w.e.f. 1.11.1993 and it was to cover all the employees from 1.1.1986 onwards. What happened to the appellant was nothing else than a misfortune as her husband died just five days prior to the date of Notification and the letter which was written by the LIC accepting her representation dated 20.12.1995 was received by the appellant only on 23.12.1995 and the amount was to be refunded with interest on or before 25.12.1995. For a widow lady having one son and two daughters, to refund such a huge amount within two days was not possible as it was nothing less than a Herculean task for her and therefore, the authority could not have shut their eyes to this hard reality of life and they should have taken little more pragmatic and compassionate approach in the matter. They could have continued the offer made by letter dated 16.8.2004 by which it was rightly decided to extend the benefits of letter dated 20.12.1995 to the appellant. The approach of the officers in the form of decision that “it has not been found appropriate to relax Rule 55-A of LIC (Employees) Pension Rules 1955 in individual case.” is mechanical as the same is taken being unmindful of the peculiar facts of the case. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that it is well settled position of law that normally relaxation/waiver is required to be granted on the basis of the facts of an individual case. The language of the communication dated 29.7.2005 is indicative of the fact that if there would have been a question of large number then possibly the decision of the authorities would have been different.
8. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that before amendment of Rules by incorporating Rule 55-A, the authorities were required to consider the individual case and grant them relaxation on the basis of merits of the facts of each case. But Rule 55-A provides that only in the group matters, the authorities will grant relaxation. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that it is too late for the widow lady aged 77 years to challenge this Rule 55-A. He therefore, submitted that taking into consideration the peculiar facts as set out hereinabove, the decision of the Central Government communicated by letter dated 13.11.2004 and communication dated 29.7.2005 of the Central Government are required to be quashed and set aside and the authorities are required to be directed to pay the petitioner pension in accordance with law.
9. On the other hand, learned Advocate for LIC and learned Standing Counsel for Union of India submitted that the decision is taken in accordance with law and as the Rule stands. Learned Advocate for the LIC submitted that Rule 55-A does not permit relaxation in an individual case and that is why the decision of the Central Government cannot be found fault with.
10. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts of the case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that there is no fault on the part of the appellant-original petitioner in submitting the representation and she was prevented by the circumstances beyond her control from refunding the huge amount with interest within 'TWO' days. Besides :-
(i) Death of her husband on 23.6.1995, just five days prior to the date of Notification of the Pension Scheme was not within her control.
(ii) Requirement of refunding the sum of Rs.
1,49,898.60 ps. with 6% interest communicated by letter dated 20.12.1995 received by the appellant dated 23.12.1995, prescribing time limit to refund the amount by 25.12.1995 was in any case not possible for the appellant-petitioner. In fact this court is of the opinion that by making such offer they prescribed an impossible task to a widow lady which was not possible for her to comply.
(iii) Willingness on the part of the widow lady even as on date to agree to the refund of the amount by adjusting the same from the amount receivable by her shows her bonafides.
Asking a 77 years old widow lady to waive her right of receiving the lawful pension in lieu of 40 years' long service put in by her husband is not found favour in any manner.
11. This court after thoughtful consideration deems it proper to direct the LIC to pay a lump sum of Rupees One Lakh to the appellant-petitioner in full and final settlement of her right to get family pension right from 24.6.1995 till she is alive. Though an event of death is certain, it is not certain as to when it will visit any person, it will be appropriate to compensate the lady by asking the LIC to pay Rupees One Lakh as full and final in lieu of her claim for the family pension.
12. At the request of learned Advocate for the LIC as well as at the request of learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India, it is clarified that this direction is given in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and it is not to be treated or cited as precedent in any other case.
13. Taking into consideration the fact that the lady is already 77 years old, it is deemed just and proper to further direct the LIC to pay this amount as early as possible but not later than 30.6.1012. The Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
14. It is made clear that the court has not examined the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
[RAVI R TRIPATHI, J.] msp [G B SHAH, J.]