Sh. Davinder Dhar vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 830 J&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Sh. Davinder Dhar vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 14 August, 2025

Author: Sanjay Dhar

Bench: Sanjay Dhar

                                                                                 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2340




     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT JAMMU
                                                                 Reserved on: 05.08.2025
                                                               Pronounced on: 14.08.2025

Case No.:-     WP(C) No. 1744/2023
               CM No. 4055/2023

Sh. Davinder Dhar
S/o Sh. Arjan Nath Dhar
R/o House No. 126, Sector No. 2
Indira Vihar, Old Janipur, Jammu.

                                                                       .....Petitioner(s)

                  Through: Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Advocate with
                                Mr. Dhruv Pant, Advocate.

                   Vs


1.   Life Insurance Corporation of India
     Through its Chairperson
     Central Office, Yogakshema
     Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point
     Mumbai-400021.

2.   Executive Director(Marketing)
     Life Insurance Corporation of India
     Central Office, Yogakshema
     Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point
     Mumbai-400021.

3.   Manager Sales
     Divisional Cell Jammu
     Divisional Office,
     18-A, Rail Head Complex, Jammu.

4.   Branch Manager, Unit-II,
     Panjtirthi, Jammu.



                                                                    ..... Respondent(s)

                    Through: Mr. Dheeraj Nanda, Advocate.
                                                                      2025:JKLHC-JMU:2340



                               2               WP(C) No. 1744/2023




Coram:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

                           JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition,

has challenged communication dated 23.04.2021 whereby

agency of Smt. Naseema Bano bearing agency code 0342114B

has been directed to be treated as 'direct agent'. The petitioner

has also sought a direction upon the respondents to attach the

agency of Smt. Naseema Bano with him and to release all the

benefits of the agency in his favour. A further direction,

commanding the respondents to refund to the petitioner the

amount to the tune of Rs. 03,08,927/- along with interest

@18% w.e.f., the date of recoveries made from the petitioner,

has also been sought.

2. As per case of the petitioner, he is serving as a Development

Officer in Branch Unit-II at Panjtirthi, Jammu. It has been

submitted that the petitioner had appointed several agents

including one Sh. Jan Mohd with agency code-2807-100.

According to the petitioner, in terms of Circular dated

11.07.2003 issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of

India(hereinafter to be referred to as 'Corporation'), it was

provided that in case of an existing agent, agency with respect 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2340

to his spouse will necessarily be granted under the same

Development Officer with whom the other spouse is already

attached. On the basis of this Circular, it is being claimed

that because Sh. Jan Mohd., was working as an agent with the

petitioner, as such his wife-Smt. Naseema Bano who was also

working as agent had to be attached to the petitioner.

3. It has been submitted that in violation of the aforesaid

Circular, the respondents granted agency to Smt. Naseema

Bano under Chief Life Insurance Agent-Sh. Sanjay Kumar

Sharma bearing agency code-034214B. It has been claimed

by the petitioner that the agency was obtained by Sh. Sanjay

Kumar Sharma by misrepresentation and concealment of

material facts inasmuch as he had concealed that Sh. Jan

Mohd., husband of Smt. Naseema Bano was already holding

the agency.

4. It has been submitted that because of the aforesaid illegality,

the petitioner was deprived of the benefits and allowances that

would otherwise have accrued to him had Smt. Naseema Bano

been attached to him.

5. The petitioner is stated to have brought the aforesaid facts to

the notice of the Senior Divisional Manager who, after holding 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2340

an inquiry vide his communication dated 04.12.2019,

detached the agency of Smt. Naseema Bano from Sh. Sanjay

Kumar Sharma and attached the same with the petitioner.

Pursuant to this communication, the petitioner was allowed all

the benefits of the agency of Smt. Naseema Bano.

6. Pursuant to the directions regarding attachment of agency of

Smt. Naseema Bano to the petitioner, the matter was taken up

with Regional Manager, Marketing, North Zone for referring

the case to Software Data Centre of the Corporation so that

agency of Smt. Naseema Bano is attached to the petitioner.

The recommendation was made by the Regional Manager,

Marketing, North Zone to the Central Office of the Life

Insurance Corporation for attachment of agency of

Smt. Naseema Bano with the petitioner and it was

recommended that the case of the petitioner regarding

attachment of agency of Smt. Naseema Bano be treated as a

special one.

7. Inspite of the aforesaid recommendations, respondent No. 2

issued instructions for treating the agency of Smt. Naseema

Bano as 'direct' instead of attaching her agency with the

petitioner. This was done in terms of impugned

communication dated 23.04.2021.

2025:JKLHC-JMU:2340

8. The Senior Divisional Manager, Srinagar once again

recommended to reconsider the case in the light of the

Circular Dated 11.07.2003 but no action has been taken by

the respondent no. 2. In the meantime, recoveries were

initiated and all the benefits, which were given to the

petitioner on account of the agency of the Naseema Bano, were

recovered from him. Accordingly, recoveries to the tune of

Rs. 3, 08,927/- have been effected from the petitioner.

9. Respondent-Corporation has contested the writ petition by

filing its reply. In its reply, it has been submitted that the

impugned decision taken by the respondent-Corporation is

absolutely in accordance with law and the rules, instructions

and guidelines governing the field. It has been contended that

it is the prerogative of the respondent-Corporation to appoint

agents and to attach them to sponsoring Development Officer.

It has been submitted that the guidelines/instructions and

circulars issued by the respondent-Corporation regarding

appointment of agents do not have the characteristics of

statutory rules and, as such, do not vest legally enforceable

right in an individual employee or agent. The aforesaid

Circular, according to the respondent-Corporation, is issued 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2340

only to minimize the scope of conflict amongst its employees

and to maximize its business interests.

10. The respondent-Corporation has admitted that Smt. Naseema

Bano was appointed as an agent and was attached to

Sh. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Chief Life Insurance Advisor. It

has also been admitted that her husband-Sh. Jaan Mohd. was

appointed as an agent and attached to the petitioner. It has

been submitted that Smt. Naseema Bano carried on business

on behalf of respondent-Corporation while being attached to

said Sh. Sanjay Kumar Sharma till objection with regard to

her being the spouse of an existing agent, was received from

the petitioner.

11. It has been submitted that attachment of agency of

Smt. Naseema Bano with Sh. Sanjay Kumar Sharma has

caused no prejudice to the petitioner and whatever business

she could procure for the respondent-Corporation was done by

her under the guidance of Sh. Sanjay Kumar Sharma without

any effort or contribution of the petitioner. On this basis, it

has been submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any

benefit that has been earned on account of efforts of Smt.

Naseema Bano while she was working with Sh. Sanjay Kumar

Sharma.

2025:JKLHC-JMU:2340

12. The respondents have admitted that in terms of

communication dated 04.12.2019, the agency of

Smt. Naseema Bano was detached from Sh. Sanjay Kumar

Sharma and attached with the petitioner and that it was also

directed that recovery of all benefits and allowances be made

from said Sh. Sanjay Kumar Sharma from the date of

appointment of Smt. Naseema Bano.

13. It has been submitted that owing to the technical

complications in the software, the order regarding attachment

of agency of Smt. Naseema Bano with the petitioner could not

be given effect to whereafter the matter was considered by the

respondent-Corporation on its merits and a decision was

taken that her agency be treated as 'direct'. Resultantly, there

was no reason for the petitioner to get any benefit in respect of

any incentive earned through the agency of Smt. Naseema

Bano. This led to recovery of Rs. 3,08,927/- from the

petitioner. It has been submitted that the petitioner is not

entitled to retain any incentive which may have been

inadvertently granted to him.

14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused

record of the case.

2025:JKLHC-JMU:2340

15. The admitted facts, which emerge from the pleadings of the

parties, are that Sh. Jan Mohd., the husband of Smt. Naseema

Bano was appointed as an agent with the petitioner. It is also

an admitted fact that Smt. Naseema Bano was appointed as

an agent and attached to Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma. As per

the Guidelines dated 11.07.2003 issued by the respondent-

Corporation, both husband and wife have to be attached with

the same Development Officer. When this position was brought

to the notice of the respondent-Corporation by the petitioner, a

communication dated 04.12.2019 came to be issued whereby

agency of Smt. Naseema Bano was detached from Mr. Sanjay

Kumar Sharma ab initio and with immediate effect whereafter

the same was attached with the petitioner. As per said

communication, a direction was issued to recover all benefits

and allowances etc that were paid to Mr. Sanjay Kumar

Sharma from the date of appointment of Smt. Naseema Bano.

16. Another communication of the same date came to be issued by

Manager Sales of the respondent-Corporation whereby the

petitioner was informed that agency of Smt. Naseema Bano

stands attached to him. On 17.03.2020, a communication

was addressed by Manager Sales of the respondent-

Corporation to Manager Sales Srinagar advising him to inform 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2340

the recovery particulars of all the benefits and allowances paid

to Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma from the date of appointment of

Smt. Naseema Bano. A further instruction was given that

credit of new business be given to the petitioner.

17. From the above, it is clear that credit of new business was to

be given to the petitioner meaning thereby the credit of new

business which Smt. Naseema Bano would be doing upon her

attachment with the petitioner was to be given to him. Thus,

credit of the business done by Smt. Naseema Bano while she

was working with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma could not have

been given to the petitioner. The petitioner can claim credit of

business done by Smt. Naseema Bano from the time she was

attached to the petitioner till such time, impugned

communication whereby her agency was treated as 'direct' was

issued by the respondent-Corporation i.e., upto 23.04.2021.

18. It appears that despite directions for attachment of

Smt. Naseema Bano with the petitioner, due to some technical

glitches, her agency could not be attached with the petitioner.

A mere technical glitch cannot undo the decision that has

been taken by the respondent-Corporation whereby it has

attached the agency of Smt. Naseema Bano with the petitioner.

Thus, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits earned by the 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2340

agency of Ms. Naseema Bano from 04.12.2019 till 23.04.2021,

the date on which the agency of Smt. Naseema Bano was

treated as 'direct'.

19. So far as the decision of the respondent-Corporation to treat

the agency of Ms. Naseema Bano as 'direct' is concerned, the

same cannot be questioned by the petitioner for the reason

that in the note-sheet, which culminated in the issuance of the

impugned communication dated 23.04.2021, it is clearly

recorded that the agency of Mr. Jan Mohd. the husband of Ms.

Naseema Bano, has been terminated w.e.f, 01.10.2019. Thus,

she no longer qualifies to be the spouse of an existing agent,

as such, circular dated 11.07.2003 ceased to have

applicability to her agency once agency of her husband was

terminated, therefore, decision of the respondent-Corporation

in treating the agency of Ms. Naseema Bano as 'direct' cannot

be interfered with.

20. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is

disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The respondent-Corporation shall calculate the benefits and allowances etc. earned from the agency of Smt. Naseema Bano w.e.f., 04.12.2019 to 23.04.2021 and refund the same to the petitioner, 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2340

(ii) The prayer of the petitioner for setting aside the decision of the respondent-Corporation to treat the agency of Smt. Naseema Bano as 'direct' is declined.

21. Connected application(s) also stand disposed of accordingly.

(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 14.08.2025 Naresh/Secy.

                          Whether order is speaking     :     Yes
                          Whether order is reportable   :     No
                                           ...