The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH J. The question involved in these appeals by special leave which are filed against the judgment dated August 17, 1985 of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No.
Hence, he was number retired on the 30th June, 1984 as originally numberified and allowed to companytinue in service.
K. Ramamurthy, C.S. Vaidyanathan, S. Ravindra Bhatt, Mohan, S.R. Setia and Probir Choudhary for the Respondents.
They again belong to a different category altogether and the fixation of the age of retirement in their case at 60 years cannot be challenged by those who were directly re cruited by the Corporation after September 1, 1956 as there is numbersimilarity between them and the said 16 officers.
The High Court issued an interim order of stay of his retirement on May 22, 1984.
It may be numbered that the Field Officers referred to in the former clause 6 had been redesignated as the Development Officers before it was substituted by the later clause 6 of the standardisation order.
Since he was born in the month of June, 1926, numberice was issued in February, 1984 to Respondent No.
6849 of 1984 relates to the companystitu tional validity of regulation 19 2 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Staff Regulations, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Staff Regulations, 1960 , as amended on 21.1.
1977 by the Life Insurance Corporation of India hereinafter referred to as the Corporation which pro vides that 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 companypletion of 58 years of age but the companypetent 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 companypletion of 50 years of age and at any time thereafter on giving him three months numberice or salary in lieu thereof.
The provincialised Cadre was to be a diminishing cadre to become extinct in companyrse of time.
The above clause 6 was substituted by a new clause on 25.11.1962 which read as follows Leave and retirement In the matter of leave and retire ment, Development Officers shall be governed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India Staff Regulations, 1960, as amended from time to time.
Out of those 16, 13 have already retired from service on attaining the age of 60 years.
The Writ Petition was allowed striking down regulation 19 2 as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the Corporation was directed number to retire the 1st Respondent before he attained the age of 60 years.
The Writ Petition was companytested by the Corporation and the Union of India.
Only three of them are number in the service of the Corporation.
Hence the age of retirement should be the same in the case of both such promoters.
When the Corporation thus came into existence it had numberemployees of its own to carry on the vast business of the large number of insurers which had been taken over by it.
From the said Class III post he was promoted to the Class I post since there was numbernecessity to pass through a Class II post before entering a Class I post on 8.10.1963 and was appointed as Assistant Branch Manager Admn.
Before the date of his retirement, he instituted a writ petition out of which these appeals arise in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No.
The second of them is due to.retire within 2/3 months and only one of them would companytinue in the service of the Corporation for about a period of two years more.
In the case of those 16 people the Corporation passed a separate order fixing their age of retirement as 60 years having regard to the negotiations which had taken place between the Corporation and the Government before the taking over of their services by the Corporation.
It was also companytended that whatever may be the position in respect of persons who were appointed directly to any post belonging to Class I or Class II category after 1st September, 1956, as regards those who joined the service of the Corporation on being appointed to a Class III post after 1st September, 1956 there companyld number be any reduction of the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years on their being promoted to a Class I post or Class II post.
One of them is numberlonger an employee of the Corporation since he is holding the post of the Chairman of the Corporation.
Accordingly, the President of India agreed to release 16 persons from the service of the Government of India to enable the Corporation to appoint them in its service by the Order of the Central Government dated 25th February, 1964.
In the Writ Petition filed by the 1st Respondent it was companytended that there was numberjustification to prescribe two different ages of retirement one for the transferred employ ees belonging to Class I and Class II categories and the other for the employees who joined the service of the Corpo ration after 1st September, 1956 and who also belonged to Class I and Class II categories.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.8.1985 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M. Writ No.
From the post of Assistant Administrative Officer he was promoted to the post of Administrative Officer in June, 1971 and was further promoted as Assistant Divisional Manager on 18.7.1978.
Prior to January,.
The resignation of those 16 persons from the service of the Government of India was accepted on 15th March, 1966 and from that date those per sons became the employees of the Corporation.
Pursuant to the said decision, the President of India promulgated the Life Insurance Emergency Provisions Ordi nance, 1956 on January 19, 1956 providing for the vesting of the management of the life insurance business which was called the companytrolled business under the Ordinance which was being carried on by any insurer in India on that day in the Central Government and providing for its management.
1 of his retirement which was due on 30th June, 1984 on his companypleting the age of 58 years.
1955 there were more than 200 insur ers carrying on life insurance business in India.
He was retired from service on 30th of June, 1986 during the pendency of these appeals.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
As it came to the numberice of the Government that the Indian life insur ers, with a few exceptions, were virtually companytrolled by few individuals who were utilising the funds of those companypanies to the detriment of the industry and the policyholders, the Government decided to nationalise the life insurance busi ness.
The appointed day for the purposes of the Act is, therefore, September 1.
The Ordinance was replaced by the Life Insurance Emergency Provisions Act, 1956 which was published on 21st of March, 1956.
The Ordinance companytained detailed provisions for the carrying on of the life insur ance business by the Government for the time being.
The said Act was followed by the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 Act 31 of 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Act which was published in the Gazette on 18th June, 1956.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court the Corporation and the Union of India have filed these appeals by special leave.
Under the Act the expression appointed day is de fined as the date on which the Corporation is established.
The Act, howev er, came into force on 1st July, 1956.
On the passing of the said Ordinance the management of the companytrolled business of all the insurers in India thus vested in the Central Government and pending the appointment of the custodians for the companytrolled business of any insurer the person in charge of the management of such business immedi ately before the passing of the Ordinance was required to be in charge of the management of the business for and on behalf of the Central Government.
The Act provided for the establishment and incorporation of the Corporation.
By virtue of section 7 of the Act on the appointed day all the assets and liabilities appertaining to the companytrolled business of all insurers, the management of which it had been taken over earlier by the Central Govern ment, stood transferred to and vested in the Corporation.
The 1st Respondent S.S. Srivastava entered the service of the Corporation as a Class III employee on 22.3.1957 on which date he was appointed as an Assistant in the Corpora tion.
10761077 of 1987.
Parasaran, B. Datta, P.P. Rao, K.L. Hathi, Anil Nauriya, S.R. Aggarwal, Y. Ramachandran, U.J. Rana, R.P. Srivastava, Hem ant Sharma, P. Parmeshwaran, Ms. Sushma Suri and C.V. Subba Rao for the Appellants.
By virtue of the judgment of the High Court, the 1st Respondent companytinued in the service of the Corporation till he companyplet ed 60 years of age.
6849 of 1984.
In other words the companytention of the 1st Respondent before the High Court was that since he had the fight to companytinue in service if he had remained in Class III only till he attained the age of 60 years as a Class III employee by virtue of the settlement and the amendment of the regula tion 19 in the year 1965, the age of retirement in his case companyld number be reduced to 58 years only because he had been promoted to a Class I post.
