Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Friday, 07 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2019-03-15 partly_allowed

SADANAND PUTHRAN vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD

Bench: 3 — Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Indira Banerjee

In Brief

Employees of LIC, United India Insurance, and Andhra Bank who had resigned before pension schemes came into force sought retrospective pension benefits after the schemes were introduced with retroactive effect. The Supreme Court held that resignation and voluntary retirement are legally distinct concepts. Pension regulations expressly disqualify resigned employees and use 'retirement' to mean statutory retirement or voluntary retirement under the scheme itself. Since employees resigned when no pension scheme existed, and the retrospective schemes excluded resigned employees, they cannot claim the benefits. The principle is that such schemes are self-contained codes and cannot be expanded by implication. One appeal was allowed on special facts regarding a claim for gratuity; the others were dismissed.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Pension Law Service Jurisprudence Retrospective Legislation Gratuity Voluntary Retirement Public Sector Employees Insurance Law Banking Regulation Life Insurance

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login