Page 54 - The Insurance Times November 2025

portunity and equity in public employment. The Court stated The court should grant amendment requests if they facili-
that such an absorption would equate to a back-door entry tate a more precise examination of the dispute and contrib-
that undermines these principles. After careful consider- ute to a more satisfactory decision. Merely a delay in sub-
ation, the Court concluded that workers who sincerely be- mitting the amendment application does not justify reject-
lieve they meet the eligibility requirements upon verifica- ing the petition. In cases where the delay aspect is debat-
tion should have their entitlements resolved either through able, the amendment request may be granted and the is-
monetary compensation in lieu of absorption, or through a sue of limitation may be presented separately for resolution.
full and final settlement of all claims and demands. In cases where the amendment requested solely pertains
to the relief specified in the plaintiff, it is customary for the
The Court mandated a fresh verification of the claims made
amendment to be granted.
by employees who claimed to have worked for Class IV for
a minimum of 85 days over a two-year period or Class III for About the case
a minimum of two years and 70 days over a three-year Refusing the application for amendment under Order VI Rule
period. Mr. Justice P K S Baghel, a former judge of the 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not be sufficient
Allahabad High Court, and Shri Rajiv Sharma, a former dis- justification for the Supreme Court's ordinary delay. "The
trict judge and UPHJS member, shall serve as committee delay in filing the application for amendment of the plead-
members for the verification procedure. "All individuals who ings should be properly compensated by costs and error or
meet the eligibility criteria as per the established standard mistake which, if not fraudulent, should not be made a
shall be granted compensation calculated at the rate of Rs ground for rejecting the application for amendment of plead
50,000 per annum of service, or a portion thereof." In lieu or written statement", according to the court.
of reinstatement, and in complete and final resolution of all In addition, the bench, which consisted of Justices Aniruddha
claims and demands of the employees in lieu of regulariza- Bose and JB Pardiwala, established parameters for evaluat-
tion or absorption, the specified rate of compensation shall ing petitions requesting an amendment to the complaint.
be advanced.The payment of compensation in lieu of rein- It was noted that a liberal approach must be taken into
statement was mandated by the Court for LIC to implement account when evaluating amendment applications of this
"within three months of the date it receives the report of nature. On June 8, 1979, the plaintiffs filed a suit in 1986
verification from the Committee." seeking specific performance of a contract. The court was
currently deliberating on an appeal that had arisen from
The Supreme Court defines guidelines for that agreement. According to the challenged order, the

order VI rule 17: amendment applications Bombay High Court granted the plaintiffs' application to
amend the complaint. The initial claim for damages in the
shall not be rejected on account of delay. lawsuit was for Rs. 1,01,00,000/- [One Crore and One Lakh

Case Title:Life Insurance Corporation vs Sanjeev only]. Subsequently, an alternative amount of Rs.
1,01,00,000/- was requested. In the form of an amendment,
Builders Private Limited | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729
the requested damages amount to Rs. 4,00,01,00,000 [Ex-
Summary cluding One Lakh]. In its denial of the appeal, the court es-
The Supreme Court's Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil tablished the subsequent principles:
Procedure states that a delay in filing an amendment appli- Allow all amendments that are essential for resolving the
cation should be compensated by costs and error or mistake, substantive dispute, so long as they do not inflict unfairness
not fraudulent grounds for rejecting the application for or prejudice on the opposing side. The necessity of this is
amendment of the petition or written statement. The court evident from the word "shall" used in the final section of
established parameters for evaluating petitions requesting Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The prayer for amendment
amendments, ensuring a liberal approach. In a case involv- shall be granted (i) if it is necessary for the efficient and
ing a plaintiffs' suit in 1986, the Bombay High Court granted proper resolution of the dispute between the parties; (ii) to
the plaintiffs' application to amend the complaint, resulting prevent redundant legal proceedings; and (iii) to ensure that
in an additional amount of Rs. 4,00,01,00,000 in the form the amendment does not lead to unjust treatment of the
of an amendment. The court established principles that al- opposing party; (b) the parties seeking the amendment do
low amendments essential for resolving the substantive dis- not attempt to revoke any explicit admission made by one
pute, as long as they do not inflict unfairness or prejudice party that grants the other side a right; and (c) the amend-
on the opposing side. ment does not create a time constraint.

The Insurance Times November 2025 49