C. Damodarasamy Vs. Government of India Rep. by Its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Economic Affairs, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
(i) service - retirement pension - rules 2, 3, 31 and 33 of lic of india (employees) pension rules, 1995 and article 226 of constitution of india - petition for direction to respondent to grant regular pension or compassionate allowance - whether petitioner eligible to invoke rule 3 (1) (a) and eligible for payment of pension - retirement defined in rule 2 (s) - termination of employee does not come within definition of expression 'retirement' or voluntary retirement in accordance with rule 31 - termination may not be punitive but cannot be equated to retirement - termination of service does not entitle petitioner to claim pension in terms of rule 3 (1) (a) - question answered against petitioner - petition dismissed. (ii) compassionate allowance - whether petitioner eligible and could.....ordere. padmanabhan, j.1. the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of declaration that the cut off date of 1.11.93 prescribed in the proviso to rule 33 of the life insurance corporation of india (employees) pension rules, 1995, read with order dated 27.11.95 issued by the 3rd respondent are illegal and unconstitutional and, consequently, direct the respondents to grant regular pension or compassionate allowance under the said rules, from the date fixed by the rules with all arrears and attendant benefits, including interest thereon, award cost and render justice.i. petitioner's case :2. the petitioner joined the life insurance corporation of india as development officer in the year 1962. on 22.4.1976, lic issued life insurance corporation of india (staff amendment) regulations, 1976......

Judgment:
ORDER

E. Padmanabhan, J.

1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of declaration that the cut off date of 1.11.93 prescribed in the proviso to Rule 33 of The Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995, read with order dated 27.11.95 issued by the 3rd respondent are illegal and unconstitutional and, consequently, direct the respondents to grant regular pension or compassionate allowance under the said Rules, from the date fixed by the rules with all arrears and attendant benefits, including interest thereon, award cost and render justice.

I. PETITIONER'S CASE :

2. The petitioner joined the Life Insurance Corporation of India as Development Officer in the year 1962. On 22.4.1976, LIC issued Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff Amendment) Regulations, 1976. In terms of Regulation 5, if a Development Officer failed to bring in eligible premium equal to five times his annual remuneration in three consecutive preceding years, the appointing authority may terminate his services. Such termination is not a penalty in terms of Rule 39 of the Staff Regulations. There has been demands and negotiations from time to time for amendment of Staff Regulations and provision of pension benefits. The petitioner, whose services were terminated by an order dated 28.11.1989 with effect from 6.3.90 after completion of 27 years of service, when he had just 21 months to reach the normal duty of retirement.

3. The LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995, were framed. Rule 3 applies to employees, who are in service of the Corporation on or after 1.1.1986, but retired before 1.11.93 and also to those who joined the services and retired after 1.11.93. Rule 14 prescribes the minimum years of service to qualify for pension. Rule 23 provides forfeiture of pension in case of resignation / dismissal / removal / termination / compulsory retirement. Rule 30 provides for regular superannuation pension. Rule 31 provides for pension on voluntary retirement on completion of 20 years of service. Rule 33 provides for payment of compassionate allowance not exceeding 2/3-rd normal pension in case of dismissal/removal/compulsory retirement or termination, if the competent authority finds that the case deserve special consideration. Rule 31 is applicable to case of dismissal, etc., if effected after 1.11.93.

4. Under the Pension Rules, 1995, employees have to opt for pension instead of PF and such of those employees, who have already received PF had to refund the same. The petitioner exercised that option, but it was rejected by impugned communication dated 27.11.95 as his services were terminated with effect from 6.3.90.

5. It is contended that pension rules are arbitrary and irrational, inasmuch as they prescribe 1.11.93 as crucial date under Rule 33, while dealing with compassionate allowance. There is no rationale behind the choice of the aforesaid date since all employees dismissed/removed, etc., before or after that date belong to the same class and there is no difference between them. There is no justification to exclude the persons, who were terminated from service after 1.1.86 from the entitlement of compassionate allowance, while granting the same to such cases, which arose after 1.11.93. Rule 33 is violative of Article 14 being unfair, unreasonable, irrationale and arbitrary. By fixing 1.11.93 as the date of eligibility, Rule 33 negates the right of an employee, who would otherwise be entitled to the same by virtue of Rule 3 and the forfeiture is illegal and arbitrary.

6. It is contended that LIC cannot deny superannuation pension under Rule 30 and LIC should grant pension as per rules. The order denying pension to the petitioner is ultra vires of the Staff Regulations read with the Pension Rules. Without pension the petitioner is suffering and he has no means to live. Hence, the present writ petition.

II. RESPONDENT'S CASE :

7. In terms of The Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, as amended up to 31.12.1983. Rule 6 provides for termination of service of employee in certain cases after giving three months notice or salary in lieu thereof, if his annual remuneration in any preceding year is in excess of the expenditure limit. The rule requires an opportunity being afforded by issue of a show cause notice for the purpose of termination.

8. The petitioner joined the services of LIC of India in the year 1962. The petitioner was on medical leave from 1984 to December 1985 due to his deteriorating health conditions. His business as Development Officer of the Corporation fell below the standard. His annual remuneration exceeded his expenditure limit applicable to him. During 1984, penalty of three increments cut was imposed on him, but on appeal it was reduced to reduction by one year. In the year 1985 also similar punishment was imposed wherein three increments were cut. On 7.1.88 a show cause notice was issued and after receipt of his reply dated 27.2.88, which was not satisfactory, the services of the petitioner was terminated with effect from 6.3.90 after giving three months notice on the ground of lack of business performance up to the required norms.

9. As the annual remuneration exceeded the expenditure limit in the case of the petitioner as per Schedule III Regulation 6 of The LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, as amended up to 31.12.1983, the petitioner was terminated from service with effect from 6.3.90. As the cut off date as prescribed under Rule 33 of the Pension Rules being 1.11.93 and as such the benefit under the Pension Rules are not applicable to the petitioner and the petitioner is not eligible, no benefits under the pension rules is applicable. The retirement of the petitioner from service, if at all he is eligible for pension, only if he has been terminated on or after 1.11.93. The petitioner cannot claim pension under the new pension scheme since he has already been terminated with effect from 6.3.90.

10. Rule 33 of the Pension rules is a valid rule and the contention that it is arbitrary or illegal or unconstitutional is devoid of merits. The fixation of cut off date as 1.11.93 is neither irrational nor arbitrary nor liable to be interfered. The Apex Court in 1992 SUPP. (1) SCC 664 has sustained the fixation of such cut off date. In terms of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief nor payment of pension and the denial of pension on the facts of the case is not violative of Article 14.

11. It is also contended that the various contentions advanced by the petitioner including the contention that Rule 33 (1) is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of The Constitution and the same are illegal is devoid of merit and substance. The fixation of cut off date in the matter relating to eligibility of pension is valid and the contention to the contra is unsustainable. There is no discrimination as contended by the petitioner under Rule 33. At any rate, the petitioner, not being eligible and not qualified for pension and, therefore, he cannot compel the respondents to pay pension. The contention that the impugned communication is illegal or irrational or arbitrary cannot be sustained. The respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

12. Heard Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Jagadeesan, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

III. Points for consideration:

13. The following points arise for consideration in this writ petition :-

'i) Whether the petitioner is eligible to invoke Rule 3 (1)(a) of the LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 and eligible for payment of pension?

ii) Whether the petitioner is eligible and could compel the respondents to pay compassionate allowance in terms of Rule 33 of the LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules?

iii) Whether the order impugned is liable to be quashed ?

iv) Whether the cut off date prescribed in Rule 33 or Rule 3 of LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995? is arbitrary, illegal, irrational and discriminatory ?'

14. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner advanced arguments on the above points, while taking the Court through the statutory rules. Per contra, Mr. M. Jagadeesan, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in terms of the rules and the rules or the cut off date are neither arbitrary nor discriminatory nor it is irrational. It is further contended that the cut off date fixed is valid in law and it is neither discriminatory nor arbitrary. The contention that the order impugned and the cut off date fixed are irrational or unconstitutional or discriminatory are devoid of merits. All the above contentions could very well be considered together as they are interconnected.

15. There is no factual dispute with respect to the services rendered by the petitioner and the circumstances under which the services of the petitioner came to be terminated. A perusal of the order of termination passed in the case of the petitioner would show that it is a termination in terms of Regulation 51 (1)(A) read with Clause 6 of Schedule III. Regulation 51 (1)(A) of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, provides that basic pay and other allowances admissible from time to time to an employee belonging to Class-II shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions contained in Schedule III. Schedule III appended to the regulations prescribes the elaborate procedure.

16. Clause 6 of the Schedule III provides for termination of the services of Development Officers under certain circumstances. Clause 6 (1) provides that the Zonal Manager may terminate the services of a Development Officer by giving him three months notice or salary in lieu thereof if his annual remuneration in any preceding year is in excess of the expenditure limit, after affording an opportunity to show cause against the process of termination. Clause 11 of the said Schedule III provides that nothing contained in the said schedule shall be deemed to affect the right of competent authority to discharge, retire or discharge the services of a Development Officer in accordance with the relevant regulations or to affect the right of the disciplinary authority to impose any penalty on him under Regulation 39 on any of the grounds specified therein. Chapter III is a special provision, which provides for termination in case, a Development Officer fails to perform in terms of the norms and as a result of which the annual remuneration in any preceding year is in excess of the expenditure limit. There is no quarrel in this case, the said power has been invoked and the petitioner was terminated with effect from 6.3.90 by proceedings dated 28.11.89. The said termination has not been challenged nor it could be challenged nor it has been challenged by the petitioner. The termination has reached finality.

17. The LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995, was framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 48 of The LIC of India Act, 1956, and the rules are called the LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995. The Rule was notified on 28.6.95 and deemed to have come into force on 1.11.93. As already pointed out, the petitioner's service was terminated with effect from 6.3.90, which is much prior to the framing of rules as well as the date on which the pension rules came into force (i.e.) 1.11.93.

18. Rule 2 defines various expressions. Rule 2 (s) defines the expression 'retirement' and it reads thus :

'2(s) 'retirement' means:-

(i) retirement in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-regulation (1) or sub-regulation (2) or sub-regulation (3) of regulation 19 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 and rule 14 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III and Class IV Employees (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1985 made under the Act;

(ii) voluntary retirement in accordance with the provisions contained in rule 31 of these rules.'

19. Chapter II provides for the Applicability and eligibility of pension Rules. Rule 3(1) which is relevant to decide the points for consideration and according to said Rule the pension Rule covers those :

'a) who were in the services of the Corporation on and after the first day of January, 1986, but had retired before 1st November, 1993 ;

b) who have retired on or after the first day of November, 1993, but before the notified date ; and

c) who are in the services of the Corporation before the notified date and continue to be in the service of the Corporation on or after the notified date.'

For the above categories the pension Rule applies.

20. According to Mr. Prased, the petitioner's case falls under Rule 3 (1) (a). The said rule reads thus :-

'3(1)(a) were in the service of the Corporation on or after the 1st day of January, 1986 but had retired before the 1st day of November, 1993; and

(b) exercise an option in writing within one hundred and twenty days from the notified date to become member of the Fund; and

(c) refund within sixty days after the expiry of the said period of one hundred and twenty days specified in clause(b), the entire amount of the Corporation's contribution to the Provident Fund including interest accrued thereon together with a further simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the said amount from the date of settlement of the Provident Fund account till the date of refund of the aforesaid amount to the Corporation.'

21. In terms of Rule 3 (1)(a), the employee should have been in service of the Corporation on or after the first day of January, 1986. It further provides that such an employee, who was in service of the Corporation on or after the first day of January, 1986, but should have retired before 1st November, 1993. In the present case, the petitioner's service was terminated on 6.3.90. The simple issue that arises being, whether the petitioner had retired on 6.3.90 or it is a case of termination without being eligible for payment of pension in terms of Rule 3 (1)(a).

22. As already pointed out, the expression 'retirement' is defined in Rule 2 (s). The termination of the petitioner is not under sub-regulation (1) or (2) or (3) of Regulation 19 of The LIC of India (Staff) Regulations and Rule 14 of Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III and Class IV (Employees revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1985 nor it is a voluntary retirement in accordance with Rule 31. To be eligible for pension or to invoke Pension Rule 3 (1)(a), the petitioner should have retired before the first day of November, 1993, which is the pre-requisite condition. It is not a case of retirement, but it is a case of termination under Clause 6 Chapter III read with Regulation 51 (1)(a) of the Staff Regulations, 1960. The order of termination may not be punitive, as sought to be contended by Mr. Prased, but it is not a retirement. Such a termination of service will not enable the petitioner to claim Pension nor is he eligible for payment of pension under the LIC of India (Employees) Pension rules, 1995.

23. If at all the petitioner could claim eligibility in terms of Regulation 3 (1)(a) and not under 3 (2)(a) or 3 (3)(a). As already pointed out, though the petitioner was in the service of the Life Insurance Corporation of India on or after 1.1.86, but he had not retired before 1.11.93 from service. On the other hand, his services were terminated with effect from 6.3.90. Therefore, the LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995, will have no application to the case of the petitioner nor the petitioner could invoke Rule 3 (1)(a) nor he is eligible at all to claim pension under the Pension Rules, 1995.

24. Incidentally is being commented by Mr. Prased that the petitioner's request for pension has been rejected as he was terminated with effect from 6.3.90. The order impugned in no way suffers with illegality nor it is arbitrary nor it is liable to be quashed even though it may not be happily worded. The order impugned is not liable to be interfered on the facts of the case.

25. Nextly, Mr. Prasad contended that the petitioner is entitled for payment of compassionate allowance in terms of Regulation 33. Chapter V prescribes the class of pension. Regulation 30 provides for payment of superannuation pension. Regulation 31 provides for pension on voluntary retirement. Regulation 32 provides for grant of invalid pension, while Regulation 33 provides for compassionate allowance. Regulation 33, which is relevant, reads thus :-

'33(1) An employee, who is dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired or terminated from service, shall forfeit his pension :

Provided that the authority competent to dismiss or remove or compulsorily retire or terminate him from service may, if

(i) such dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or termination is on or after the 1st day of November, 1993; and

(ii) the case is deserving of special consideration, sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of the pension which would have been admissible to him on the basis of the qualifying service rendered upto the date of his dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or termination.

(2) The compassionate allowance sanctioned under the proviso to sub-rule (1) shall not be less than the amount of the minimum pension payable under rule 36 of these rules.'

26. Regulation 33 is prospective, which provides that an employee, who is dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired or terminated from service shall forfeit his pension provided the authority competent to dismiss or remove or compulsorily retire or terminate the employee from service may, if such removal or dismissal or compulsory retirement is on or after 1.11.93 and the case is deserving for special consideration, sanction compassionate allowance not exceeding 2/3-rd of the pension, which would have been admissible to the employee on the basis of the qualifying service rendered up to the date of his dismissal/removal or compulsory retirement or termination. This is a case where the service of the petitioner was factually terminated with effect from 6.3.90. Regulation 33 will apply to a case of an employee, who has been dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired or terminated on or after the first day of November, 1993. Therefore, the said regulation is prospective and it is operative from the date on which the pension regulation is deemed to have come into force, viz., 1.11.93.

27. The termination in the case of the petitioner was prior to 6.3.90 and not on and after the first day of November, 1993, which is the pre-requisite to invoke Regulation 33. Regulation 33 being prospective and operates from the date on which the pension rules came into force and the petitioner not being eligible to invoke the said regulation cannot also seek for compassionate allowance. Regulation 33 operates independently and it is an enabling provision, which enables the competent authority in case of dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement or termination from service, may, if such removal, etc., is on or after the first day of November, 1993 and if the case is deserving of special consideration, compassionate allowance not exceeding 2/3-rd of the pension could be sanctioned subject to the limitation. The petitioner is neither eligible to claim compassionate allowance nor he could compel the respondents to pay compassionate allowance nor his case falls under Regulation 33.

28. Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the pronouncement of the Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER VS. DEOKI NANDAN AGGARWAL reported in 1992 (1) SCC 323 which pronouncement in my considered view, in no way advances the case and supports the contention of the petitioner. In the said case, the Apex Court laid down that it is not the duty of the Court either to enlarge the scope of legislation or the intention of the Legislature when the language of the provision is plain.

29. The learned counsel for the petitioner, yet again, relied upon the pronouncement of the Apex Court in A.P.SRIVASTAVA VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. reported in 1996 (1) LLJ 241, where it has been held that if a temporary Government servant who has rendered 20 years of service is entitled to pension, if he voluntarily retires, there is no justification of denying such a right of pension to him when he is required to retire by the employer in the public interest. It is deemed that the fundamental rights as well as the pension rules govern the Government service. In the present case there was no pension rules, which was in force on 6.3.90 when the order of termination was passed. The above rules came into force on 28.6.95, but with retrospective effect from 1.11.93. It is not the case of the petitioner that on the date when he was recruited or appointed, there was any provision for payment of pension nor a scheme has been framed providing for payment of pension. Therefore, the pronouncement of the Supreme Court has no application.

30. Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the pronouncement in ALL INDIA RESERVE BANK RETIRED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER reported in to contend that the cut off date for applicability of pension scheme in the present case is violative of Article 14. Far from supporting the case of the petitioner, the said pronouncement of the Supreme Court is against the writ petitioner. In the said pronouncement, Ahamadi, J., (as he then was), speaking for the bench held thus :-

'11. Besides it has been pointed out by the Bank authorities that under their manual, service details pertaining to an employee who has retired are maintained for five years and thereafter they are destroyed and, therefore, the cut-off date was fixed as January 1, 1986. This is clearly brought out in paragraph 3 of Deepak Bankal's affidavit. Secondly, this Court had, during the tendency of the writ petition, asked both sides to prepare statements showing the financial implications if the cut-off date is removed and the scheme is applied to all retirees. Both sides experienced difficulty for want of service records and whatever calculations were made from scanty service records available with them, were disputed. This justifies the reason for not extending the benefit to those who had retired before five years or more.

12. Lastly, the justification for fixing the cut-off date as January 1, 1986 is that the newly introduced pension scheme is modelled on the lines of a similar scheme applicable to Central Government employees. The proposal to have a scheme similar to the one applicable to Central Government employees in lieu of the existing CPF scheme was mooted by the in-service Bank employees sometime in 1986 and on the Central Government according sanction, it was brought into effect from November 1, 1990. That is why it was made applicable to those who retired in the meantime on or after January 1, 1986. The underlying reason is to operate the scheme on the pattern of the scheme governing Central Government employees and to extend the benefit to those Bank employees who had demanded the same.

13. For the above reason we do not find any substance in the allegation that the cut-off date had been arbitrarily fixed by the Bank authorities or the Central Government while giving its approval or that it is devoid of rational consideration and is wholly whimsical. In fixing the cut-off date the respondents had not acted mala fide with a view to deprive those who had retired on or before December 31, 1985 of the benefit of the pension scheme but for reasons stated above it was not practicable to extend the benefit to such retirees. The rationale for fixing the cut-off date as January 1, 1986 was the same as in the case of Central Government employees based on the recommendation of the Fourth Central Pay Commission.'

The same reasonings applies to the facts of the present case. Hence, it cannot be said that the cut off date is arbitrary or discriminatory or illegal.

31. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the later pronouncement in BANK OF INDIA VS. INDU RAJAGOPALAN & ORS., reported in 2000 (1) LLJ 1617, where their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while taking note of the fact that the number of employees being small, declined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court, besides there was any equal financial or other burden or difference so far as those, who had voluntarily retired and those who had ordinarily retired. The case on hand is clearly distinguishable on facts.

32. In TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD VS . R. VEERASAMY reported in : where their Lordships of the Apex Court had occasion to consider the contention whether prospective introduction of pension scheme with reference to the cut off date as valid or violative of Articles 14 and 16 or based upon a classification or based on intelligible differentia like cut off date? Venkatasami, J., (as he then was), after analysing the case law, held thus :-

'8. As noticed earlier, the law is very well settled on the issue on hand. In the latest judgment dated 9.10.1998 of this Court in V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay after noticing all the judgments of this Court up to that date on this issue, it was held as follows:

'23. However, if an employee at the time of his retirement is not eligible for earning pension and stands outside the class of pensioners, if subsequently by amendment of the relevant pension rules any beneficial umbrella of pension scheme is extended to cover a new class of pensioners and when such a subsequent scheme comes into force, the erstwhile non-pensioner might have survived, then only if such extension of pension scheme to erstwhile non-pensioners is expressly made retrospective by the authorities promulgating such scheme; the erstwhile non-pensioner who has retired prior to the advent of such extended pension scheme can claim benefit of such a new extended pension scheme. If such new scheme is prospective only, old retirees non-pensioners cannot get the benefit of such a scheme even if they survive such new scheme. They will remain outside its sweep. The decisions of this Court covering such second category of cases are: Commander, Head Quarter v. Cap. Biplabendra Chanda and Govt. of T.N. v. K. Jayaraman to which we have made a reference earlier. If the claimant for pension benefits satisfactorily brings his case within the first category of cases, he would be entitled to get the additional benefits of pension computation even if he might have retired prior to the enforcement of such additional beneficial provisions. But if on the other hand, the case of a retired employee falls in the second category, the fact that he retired prior to the relevant date of the coming into operation of the new scheme would disentitle him from getting such a new benefit.'

* * * * 11. On 17.11.1998, a three Judge Bench in All India PNB Retired Officers' Assn. v. Union of India while negativing an identical claim, held as follows:

'This writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers' Assn. v. Union of India. That judgment has rightly noted the distinction that Nakara case drew between a continuing scheme and a new scheme.' 12. In view of the fact that this Court, as seen above, has consistently taken a view, we do not want to multiply the authorities for the same proposition except to note down the undisputed facts relating to these cases.'

Following the said pronouncement, this Court also holds that the cut off date, in the present case, is neither violative of Article 14 nor Article 16. Therefore, the contention advanced in this respect cannot be sustained.

33. In STATE OF W.B. VS. RATAN BEHARI DEY & ORS., reported in : the Apex Court held that an employer has the undoubted power to revise the salaries and/or pay scales and so also the terminal benefits, pensionary benefits and it has the power to specify the date from which revision of pay or pensionary benefits, as the case may be, shall take effect, as it is a concomitant of the said power and when there is no discrimination between similarly placed persons, no interference is called for by the Court in that behalf. This pronouncement squarely applies

34. While following the pronouncement in ALL INDIA RESERVE BANK RETIRED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER in SUBRATA SEN VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in : M.B. Shah, J., reiterated the law laid down by Ahamadi J.

35. On facts and for the reasons set out above, this Court holds that the petitioner is not eligible to claim pension in terms of Rule 3 (1)(a) and the point is answered against the petitioner. The second point is also answered against the petitioner as he cannot claim compassionate allowance nor he is eligible to claim the same under Rule 33. The order impugned is not liable to be interfered as no right has accrued to the petitioner under the LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995. The third point is also answered against the petitioner. Lastly on point No. 4, this Court holds that the cut off date fixed in this case is neither arbitrary nor it is unconstitutional nor it is liable to be interfered.

36. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.