Veerendra Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, a retired employee of Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent Corporation', for short), approached this Court by way of a writ application being S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 6786 of 2005 (Ramesh Chandra Khandelwal v. Life Insurance Corporation of India) in the year 2005; claiming benefit of addition of 8 months service in qualifying service of the petitioner in terms of Rule 27 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1995', for short). However, the writ application was withdrawn with the permission to make a representation to the respondent Corporation. This Court vide order dated 29th February, 2008, granted the permission with a direction to decide the representation, if made, within a period of two months from the date of its receipt keeping in view the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. v. S. Dharmalingam: : AIR 1994 SC 592. The respondent Corporation vide impugned order dated 26th June, 2008 (Annexure -8) has decided the representation of the petitioner in compliance of the direction issued by this Court on 29th February, 2008. Aggrieved by the rejection of the representation vide impugned order dated 26th June, 2008, the petitioner has again instituted the above noted writ application for an appropriate writ, order or direction for grant of benefit of addition of 8 months service in qualifying service, in terms of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1995, for the purpose of fixation of his pension on the date of his retirement i.e. 28th February, 1995.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the essential skeletal material facts necessary to put the controversy in its proper perspective may be first outlined. The petitioner was recruited as Development Officer, in the respondent Corporation on 20th October, 1962, beyond the age of 25 years as his date of birth being 25th February, 1937. The age limit for appointment to the post of Class -II (Development Officer) at the relevant time was 25 years. Thus, his qualifying service in the respondent Corporation on the date of his retirement was 32 years and 4 months, which was less than minimum qualifying service for requirement of grant of full pensionary benefits. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that since he was appointed beyond the age of 25 years by according relaxation in the age limit, which can be relaxed upto maximum of 5 years under Rule 27 of the Rules of 1995; and therefore, by virtue of Rule 27, he was entitled for addition to his service qualifying for superannuation pension for a period not exceeding one -fourth of the length of his service or the actual period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeded twenty -eight years, or a period of five years, whichever is less as contemplated under Rule 27 of the Rules of 1995. In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondent Corporation has filed its counter -affidavit pleading that the age of the petitioner at the time of recruitment on 20th October, 1962 as Class -II (Development Officer) in the Corporation, was 25 years 7 months and 25 days as his date of birth according to the office record, is 25th February, 1937. It is further pleaded that for appointment to the post of Development Officer, the minimum age limit is 18 years, but there was no upper age limit and therefore, any relaxation accorded to the petitioner at the time of initial appointment with the Corporation simply did not arise. Rule 27 of the Rules of 1995 has been carved out for addition to qualifying service, in special circumstances, subject to fulfillment of the conditions stipulated therein. Repelling the claim for addition to qualifying service, it is further pleaded by the respondent Corporation that the petitioner superannuated on 28th February, 1995, after having completed service of 32 years and 4 months. Since the petitioner is not eligible to add to his service qualifying for superannuation pension as per terms of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1995, which deals with such an addition to qualifying service in special circumstances, the writ application merits rejection.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts has argued that the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations of 1960', for short), under Regulation 10 provides for appointment to the service of a person, who shall not be less than 18 or more than 25 years, provided the competent authority will have the discretion to relax or waive the limit wherever necessary. Therefore, the very fact that the petitioner was appointed to a post belonging to Class -II (Development Officer) after the age of 25 years; obviously the competent authority relaxed the age limit in his discretion and hence, the petitioner is entitled for addition to the qualifying service, the period of 8 months in terms of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1995, which would entitle him full pension treating his service as 33 years. In order to reinforce his contentions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Dharmalingam (supra).;