Sanjay Kumar vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 454 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                           WP(C) No.2301/2010



%                                                          January 31, 2013



SANJAY KUMAR                                            ..... Petitioner
                            Through:         Mr. A.P. Dhamija, Advocate.



                            versus



LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Meghna Sankhla, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner who was terminated from

services of respondent No.1-Life Insurance Corporation of India during the

probationary period, seeks the relief of quashing the orders refusing to

extend the probation period and thereby terminating his services. The

impugned orders are dated 16.12.2008 and 2.1.2010.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as an

Apprentice Development Officer by the respondent No.1 as per the

appointment letter dated 17.12.2007. Paras 2 and 10 of the said appointment

letter read as under:-

"2. PROBATIONARY PERIOD:

You shall be on probation initially for a period of twelve months from the date of your joining duties as a probationer, but the Corporation may, in its sole discretion, extend your probationary period, provided that the total probationary period including the extended probationary period shall not exceed 24 months counted from the commencement of the probationary appointment. During the probationary period (which includes extended probationary period, if applicable) you shall be liable to be discharged from the services of the Corporation without any notice and without any cause being assigned.

10. MINIMUM BUSINESS:

i) During the probationary period you shall secure through the agents recruited at your instance minimum completed life business of Rs. 3.5 crores yielding a Scheduled First Year Premium Income of not less than Rs. 10.00 lacs provided, however, that in case the pay and/or allowance admissible to you, under Clause I are increased

during the period, the minimum business and the premium income which you should secure shall be increased proportionately.

ii) The minimum business set out in (i) shall be spread over not less than 550 lives and shall be secured regularly through a network of dependable agencies.

iii) You will be required to recruit minimum of 35 agents out of which 35 agents should have become active, 35 agents should individually have put in during that period the minimum business required of them in an agency year according to Rule (9) of the LIC of India (Agents) Rules, 1972 and 15 agents should become Productive agents i.e one who has completed either at least 20 lives or 12 lives with Scheduled First Year Premium Income of Rs. 1,00,000 in the agency year.

iv) If your probationary period is extended, you shall secure during the extended period such business as may be intimated to you."

3. As per the respondent No.1, the petitioner did not bring in the

necessary minimum business as per para 10 of the appointment letter and

therefore the probationary period of petitioner was not extended and his

services were terminated.

4. The respondent No.1 has given the following chart with respect

to various personnel, some of whom were confirmed and others terminated,

and petitioner is found at serial No.16 of this chart:-

Performance (from probation to 15-12-2008) No. of count

No. Of Agents Schedule Qual. Prod. Target policies rec. FPI Agents Agents achieved Target Target Target 10 Target Target App CR 550 35 lacs 35 15 cost rate Sl. Name COD BR CODE Dt. Of Prob. Conf. Due on Action No. (Sh./Ms.) E

1. Manoj Kumar 5206 11E,SSO 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 106 34 6.23 1 1 Nil 25.04 Outstanding Confirmed

2. Sh. Kirti 5211 123,SSO 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 430 51 15.8 5 11 1 9.87 Outstanding Confirmed

3. Sh. Rajesh 5313 123,SSO 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 175 35 7.51 2 3 1 20.77 Outstanding Confirmed

4. Sh. Manoj 5219 12K 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 243 30 10.4 6 4 1 15.54 Outstanding Confirmed Kumar

5. U.P.Singh 5221 12L 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 340 20 7.7 7 2 Nil 20.26 Outstanding Confirmed

6. Sh. Sajal 5209 123 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 195 28 6.51 1 3 Nil 23.96 Outstanding Confirmed

7. Sh. Praveen 5194 116 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 88 26 5.69 0 0 Nil 27.42 Outstanding Extended Prakash

8. S.K. Gautam 5197 326 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 50 16 2.23 0 0 Nil 69.96 Average Extended

9. Maneesh 5198 327 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 71 21 3.94 0 0 Nil 39.59 Well above Extended Khatri average

10. Amit Kumar 5200 12D 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 84 18 2.07 0 0 Nil 75.36 Outstanding Extended

11. Abhishek 5201 12D 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 93 31 3.55 1 0 Nil 43.34 Outstanding Extended Kumar

12. Sh. Rajiv 5202 11B,SSO 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 74 19 2.03 4 1 Nil 76.85 Well above Extended Rajnaj average

13. Ms. Anshita 5203 11B,SSO 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 62 15 2.61 1 0 Nil 59.77 Well above Extended Kale average

14. Sh. Ritesh 5204 11B,SSO 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 98 9 3.64 2 2 Nil 42.86 Well above Extended Sagar average

15. Sh. Amit 5208 11L 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 118 16 6.89 3 2 Nil 22.64 Average Extended Kumar Dahiya

16. Sanjay Kumar 5199 327 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 53 9 1.74 1 0 Nil 123% Below average Terminated

17. Sh.M.S. 5215 12C 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 20 7 0.74 1 0 Nil 213% Average Terminated Brijwal

18. Gajendra 5216 12J 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 3 2 0.47 0 0 Nil 3275% Outstanding Terminated Singh

Manager(Sales)

Delhi DO-II

5. A reading of the aforesaid chart shows that indubitably the

petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of bringing in business as

per clause 10 of his appointment letter. The petitioner was below the mark

whereas 15 other persons achieved the necessary business for the respondent

No.1-corporation and therefore their probationary periods were extended and

they were subsequently confirmed. The petitioner as also two other persons,

namely, Sh. M.S. Brijwal and Sh. Gajendra Singh were terminated from

services during the probationary period on account of failure to bring in the

requisite business.

6. The contention of the petitioner that he has been discriminated

as against other persons who did not bring in the necessary business but

were confirmed is therefore incorrect in view of the chart reproduced

hereinabove.

7. It is settled law that it is not necessary that a probationer has to

be confirmed to his services. In fact, in the present case, the decision taken

by the respondent No.1 is not a subjective decision but an objective decision

based on performance parameters and therefore the probation of the

petitioner was not extended alongwith two others, whereas 15 other persons

were given extensions and thereafter confirmed by the respondents.

8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition which is

accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J JANUARY 31, 2013 Ne