Twenty years’ qualifying service is not required for voluntary retirement after age 55 under Rule 19(2A)(a).

The petitioner, an ex-serviceman, joined the LIC as a Development Officer in 2007.

After turning 55 and completing approximately ten years of service, he sought voluntary retirement by notice dated 21 December 2017.

LIC rejected the request, reasoning that he had not completed twenty years of qualifying service.

His performance deteriorated after heart surgery and a road accident; he took substantial medical leave and had earlier sought a transfer to the Administration Department on health grounds.

LIC subsequently terminated him on 14 June 2018 for exceeding the prescribed cost ratio.

His earlier writ petition challenging the show-cause notice and seeking consideration of his retirement request was dismissed as infructuous after the termination order was passed.

He challenged the termination and sought recognition of his voluntary retirement.

Regulation 19(2A)(a) of the LIC of India Staff Regulations, 1960 permits an employee who has completed 55 years of age to retire after giving three months’ written notice, without prescribing a minimum service period.

The twenty-year qualifying-service requirement in Regulation 19(2A)(b)(i) is a separate route for pension-rule employees and cannot be imported into clause (a).

Under Rule 6(8), read with Rule 7(1), of the LIC Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009, as amended in 2016, exceeding the prescribed cost ratio does not require automatic termination; the authority must consider the Development Officer’s explanation and any valid cause shown.

The Court relied on Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sonia Bhaskar, 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 23029, which read “shall” in Rule 6(8) as “may” and held that genuine causes must be considered before termination; the Supreme Court dismissed the LIC’s SLP against that decision.

The petitioner had attained 55 years and submitted the required notice, so the twenty-year service condition applicable to Regulation 19(2A)(b)(i) did not defeat his entitlement under clause (a).

His cost ratio rose sharply in 2016 and 2017, but the record showed substantial medical leave following bypass surgery and a road accident, as well as an earlier request for a health-based transfer.

Although LIC had these circumstances before it, the termination order relied on the cost-ratio figures without addressing the petitioner’s explanation.

The authority therefore failed to provide the substantive consideration required by Rule 7(1) and the principle in Sonia Bhaskar.

The Court also found that proper consideration of the retirement request could have avoided the subsequent termination dispute.

LIC was directed to calculate and disburse all terminal benefits, including benefits withheld following termination, within eight weeks of receiving the order.

No costs were awarded.