Kasturi Lal vs The Life Insurance Corpn. Of India
1999 Latest Caselaw 178 Del

JUDGMENT

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

1. The petitioner filed a writ petition on 15.10.1990 praying:-

(1) to direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for the purposes of promotion to the post of Higher Grade Assistant (Artist) and promote him to the same post retrospectively from the date when he become eligible to be considered for promotion with all consequential benefits as in 1975-1976;

(ii) To declare the illegal action of the Respondents in deleting the category of the Higher Grade Assistant (Artist) from the New Rules of 1987 as totally arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner as enshrined in the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; and

(3) Grant any other relief, order/direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstance of the case,

2. The case of the petitioner can be recounted tersely for a proper appreciation of his contention in the following terms:

3. The petitioner joined the Divisional Office of the Life Insurance Corporation as an Assistant. In or about 1968-69 the petitioner acquired the Professional and Technical qualification required for the job of an artist. The petitioner passed Intermediate of National Diploma in Art from All India Council for Technical Education. Ministry of Education a three year degree course by the end of 1969. To view of the qualification acquired by the petitioner, he was posted in the Publicity Department, Zonal Office at New Delhi and he was asked to do jobs like designing the House Magazine Souvenir, posters, Illustrations and flashes, lights beside publicity materials.

4. On 21.2.1972 the petitioner made a representation to the Managing Director to consider his case of promotion to the cadre of Higher Grade Assistant. On 7.4.1972, the Zonal Manager wrote to the petitioner in the following terms:

"With reference to your representation dated 21.2.72 addressed to the Managing Director, we have been advised by the Central Office to inform you that as an Assistant, you are governed by the recent settlement on promotion procedure and your case can therefore be considered for promotion to the cadre of HGA on the Administrative side alongwith other eligible candidates as and when instructions for implementing the settlement on promotion procedure are issued."

So far your case as an Artist in the higher grade Assistant's scale on the technical side is concerned, the same cannot be considered at this stage as promotion procedure for technical side is yet to be finalised. As and when it is" done and instructions for implementation are issued, your case would be considered in terms of these rules.

5. On 15th of March, 1976 the L.I.C. issued the Life Insurance Corporation of India Promotion Regulations. In the schedule there is one category of Higher Grade Assistant (OTIS) and the condition of eligibility mentioned is 5 years as an Artist. On 13.10.1976 the petitioner made a representation to the Senior Divisional Manager requesting that he may he promoted as Higher Grade Assistant (Artist) as he has served the Corporation for 7 or 8 years as an Artist. He mentioned that office has recommended similar cases in the past and his case has also been recommended by Mr. B. Ramu the then Zonal Manager and Mr. G.K. Murchant, the then Senior Divisional Manager. On 18.11.1976, the Divisional Manager wrote to the petitioner that it was not possible for the petitioner being considered for the post of C.A. (Artist) as the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant and not as an artist and the petitioner should undergo a written test. The petitioner was also informed that he had been allotted a role number. The petitioner, instead of appearing in the test, wanted exemption from appearing in the test. On 5.7.1977, the Senior Divisional Manager wrote to the petitioner that it has been decided to consider his case for promotion in the cadre of G.A. Higher Grade Assistant (Artist) and the petitioner would he called for interview at the appropriate time, stage and rules. On 5.4.1978, the petitioner wrote to the Senior Divisional Manager about the proposal. On 18th May, 1978, the petitioner wanted to be designated as an Artist. On 22.9.1979 he sought permission to use the designation 'Artist'. On 9.9.1979, the Senior Divisional Manager wrote to the petitioner in the following terms:

"This has reference to your representation dated 22nd Sept., 1979 on the above mentioned subject. In this connection, we have to inform you that the matter was taken up with Zonal Office, New Delhi and we have not been informed by them that you are not eligible to be considered for promotion to the cadre of Artist (HGA) and as a special case it was decided to consider you to be eligible for promotion as HGA(Artist) subject to other rules laid down for promotion to this cadre. You will then observe that the relaxation as above has been allowed as a special case and that your category has not been changed from Assistant to Artist. Therefore, your designation remains as Assistant, which please note."

6. On 6th of May, 1982, the Senior Divisional Manager informed the petitioner that he would be addressed as an 'Artist' in future.

7. His case for promotion to the higher grade was not considered.

8. On 25th September, 1987 the Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs) issued the Life Insurance Corporation of India Clause (iii) of Employees Promotion Rules 1987). In that the category of Higher Grade Assistant (Artist) is not found and, therefore, there is no such category as Higher Grade Assistant (Artist).

9. On 30th of March, 1989 the petitioner made a representation to the Chairman in the following terms:

"I am rendering specialised services to the Corporation as an artist since 1969 by virtue of my technical qualifications i.e. BFA (Applied Art) specialised course (like BE, B.Arch) from College of Art, Delhi University, Delhi.

As per the Promotion Policy Gazetted through Gazette of India extraordinary Part II, Part III Section 4 dated New Delhi Monday March 15, 1975 (S. No. 11), I was made eligible for promotion to the cadre of H.G.A. (Artist) vide Divisional Office letter Ref:Para:A/110465 dated 1/5.7.1977 (copy enclosed). Vide that letter I was assured to be called for interview at an appropriate time. Since then I have been sincerely doing my job of Artist for the Corporation.

To my utter surprise, the new promotion policy does not find any mention of an Artist. From this narration, you will kindly observe that my sincere services to the Corporation have been negated and I have been denied the basic human approach of rise in life.

Under the circumstances, I request you to please consider my case and undo the injustice meted out to me.

10. On 3.8.1989 the petitioner informed that his representation had been forwarded to the Zonal Office. On 6.4.1990 the petitioner again wrote to the Chairman in the following terms:

"This is further to my letter dated 30th March, 1989 and subsequent reminders dated 31st May, 21st June, 6th July, 16th August, 8th November and 29th December, 1989 regarding the eligibility of an Artist for Promotion to higher posts as there is no mention in the new promotion policy.

Now the silence on your part would compel me to knock the door of Court of Law for Justice.

This is for your information please.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Jog Singh submitted that the petitioner had been denied promotion without any justification whatsoever. He had joined the services of the L.I.C. and his work has been appreciated by the officers. Having regard to the meritorious service rendered by the petitioner, he entertained legitimate expectations of his case being considered for promotion. The learned counsel Mr. Jog Singh referred judgment of the Supreme Court in , U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors.. The learned counsel referred to the passage at page 361 which reads as under:-

"Accordingly, 'legitimate expectations' in this context are capable of including expectations which go beyond enforceable legal rights, provided they have some reasonable basis. A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment.

12. The learned counsel also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 7997 (3) SCC Page 398, Shrijee Sales Corporation and Anr. v. Union of India. He referred to page 405 for the purpose of picking the petitioner's case on the principle of 'Promissory Estoppel' which reads as under:-

"(E) To adopt the line of reasoning in Emmanuel Ayodeji Ajayi V. Briscoe quoted in M.P. Sugar Mills even where there is no such overriding public interest, it may still be within the competence of the Government to resile from the promise on giving reasonable notice which need not be a formal notice, giving the promisea reasonable opportunity of resuming his position, provided, of course, it is possible for the promiseto restore the status quo ante. If, however, the promisecannot resume his position, the promise would become final and irrevocable."

13. Trying to explain the basic principle of promissory estoppel, the learned counsel referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in , Asha Keshavrao Bhosale v. Union of India. The Learned counsel read the passage at page 383 which is as under:

"Another aspect of this matter which needs to be mentioned is that the embargo on the appearance of legal practitioners should not be extended so as to prevent the detenu from being aided or assisted by a friend who, in truth and substance, is not a legal practitioner. Every person whose interests are adversely affected as a result of the proceedings which have a serious import, is entitled to be heard in those proceedings and be assisted by a friend. A detenu, taken straight from his cell to the Board's room, may lack the ease and composure to present his point of view. He may be "tongue-tied, nervous, confused or wanting in intelligence" (see Petti v. Greyhound Racing Association Ltd.), and if justice is to be done, he must at least have the help of a friend who can assist him to give coherence to his stray and wandering ideas. Incarceration makes a man and his thoughts dishevelled. Just as a person who is dumb entitled, as he must, to be represented by a person who has speech, even so, a person who finds himself unable to present his own case is entitled to take the aid and advice of a person who is better situated to appreciate the facts of the case and the language of the law.

14. The learned counsel for the L.I.C. Ms. Nandini Sahni submitted that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant and, therefore, his prayer to be considered only as per the rules. If he had been appointed as an Artist then as per the regulations of 1976 he was entitled to be considered. No doubt, the officers in the lower level had been trying to help the petitioner but in the absence of any service Rules enabling them to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, they could not really render any assistance to the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that in appreciation of the petitioner's work, the Senior Divisional Manager had permitted the petitioner to have the designation as an 'Artist'. The learned counsel submitted that the L.I.C. could consider the case of any employee only in accordance with the rules framed with the Government of India on 25.9.1987. When the rules do not provide for any promotion to the petitioner there is no question of the petitioner expecting his case being considered on the principle of 'legitimate expectations'. The learned counsel submitted that the of promissory estoppel does not also apply to the facts of this case.

15. In view of the fact that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant the fact that he was doing some specialised work after acquiring qualification would not clothe him with any right to be considered for further promotion to a higher post. Therefore, he could not be considered for promotion in the light of the L.I.C. Promotion Regulations 1976.

16. The notification issued by the Government of India on 25.9.1987 does not provide for any promotional avenue. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance against the L.I.C. The concept of legitimate expectations has not been properly appreciated by the petitioner. The ingredients required for applying the doctrine of legitimate expectations are not present in the case of the petitioner.

17. I am unable to accept the arguments of Ms. Jog Singh that the petitioner could rely on the principle of Promissory Estoppel. The decision of the Supreme Court in 1997 (3) ACC 398 and 1985 (4) ACC 369 does not apply in the case of the petitioner.

18. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for the grant of the reliefs prayed for. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.