Kerala High Court
Ananthan V vs Union Of India on 5 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942
WA.No.1871 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 34317/2018(L) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA DATED 21/5/2019
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ANANTHAN V.
AGED 44 YEARS
CSM-21, EDAPPAZHINJIL, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.K.PRASAD
SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING,
PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI - 110 001
2 THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, YOGAKSHEMA
BUILDING, JEEVAN BIMA MARG, MUMBAI - 400 021
WA No.1871/2019
-:2:-
3 ZONAL MANAGER
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, SOUTHERN
ZONE, LIC ZONAL OFFICE, LIC BUILDING,
ANNASALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002
4 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JEEVAN PRAKASH, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004
5 SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
CITY BRANCH OFFICE - 1,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR
R2-5 BY ADV. SRI.S EASWARAN (B/O)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-12-
2020, THE COURT ON 05-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1871/2019
-:3:-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2021
Shaffique, J.
The appellant is the writ petitioner, who was unsuccessful in
challenging Ext.P11 order issued by the Senior Divisional
Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India terminating his
service from the post of Development Officer.
2. Petitioner joined service in the cadre of Development
Officer in 2002 and worked for 9 years in Adoor Branch of
Kottayam Division. He was transferred to Thiruvananthapuram
Division in the year 2011. He was issued notice alleging that
during the appraisal years, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, his
performance was not matching the stipulated standards and he
was asked to show cause why he should not be terminated from
service under Rule 7(1) r/w Rule 6(8) of the Life Insurance
Corporation of India (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of
Service) Rules, 2009 as amended in 2016 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Special Rules').
WA No.1871/2019
3. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that it
was not proper on the part of the respondents in clubbing
together the appraisal process of three years and none of the
material factors which had been stated by him in respect of each
year was considered by the competent authority.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by LIC, they took up a
contention that petitioner has an alternate statutory remedy by
way of an appeal and therefore there is no necessity for this
Court to interfere in the matter. That apart, it was contended that
disincentive notice dated 17/6/2014 has been issued to the
petitioner under Rule 6(4) of the Special Rules based on his
performance in the appraisal year which ended on 31/3/2014. He
submitted a representation for reconsidering the imposition of
disincentive. However, it was found that there was no factual
error or any cause beyond the control of the officer and
accordingly his representation was rejected. Again when show
cause notice was issued for the next year's performance,
petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.8737/2015
which came to be disposed of granting the petitioner three weeks
time to submit a representation and the Corporation was directed
WA No.1871/2019
to dispose of the matter. After personally hearing the petitioner
on 1/1/2016, termination notice was issued on 9/1/2016 based on
the poor performance of the petitioner for the appraisal year
ended 31/3/2015. Petitioner thereafter filed WP(C) No. 2311/2016
for quashing the termination notice. There was a stay of
termination proceedings, consequent to which LIC moved an
application for modifying the interim order seeking permission to
proceed on the basis of performance of the petitioner for
subsequent years which was permitted by this Court as per order
dated 6/7/2018 pursuant to which show cause notice was issued
to the petitioner for termination of his service as per the Special
Rules. Petitioner submitted reply. He again filed WP(C) No.
28009/2018 to set aside the show cause notice. The said writ
petition was disposed of directing the 4th respondent to take a
decision after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
He submitted a representation and the 4 th respondent, after
giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner for hearing, issued
Ext.P11 order on 5/10/2018. It is pointed out that as per the
Special Rules governing the service of Development Officer under
the LIC of India, performance of the Development Officer forms
WA No.1871/2019
the basis of his continuation in service. It is pointed out that the
petitioner was transferred to Thiruvananthapuram Division on his
request. Thereafter, on assessment of the performance of the
petitioner, it was found that the cost ratio exceeded the
prescribed limit. Accordingly, there was a reduction in his basic
pay effective from 01/04/2013 when the disincentive got
attracted. It is thereafter show cause notice dated 26/4/2014 was
issued as his performance was not up to the standard prescribed.
5. According to the respondents, petitioner's service had
been terminated in terms with Rule 6(8) of the Special Rules. Rule
6(8) can be invoked when the cost ratio exceeds the maximum of
50% in three consecutive appraisal years. When factually the
aforesaid position is clear, petitioner cannot seek for
reinstatement in service. It is also pointed out that by virtue of
the amendment in the year 2016, the cost ratio was raised form
38% to 50% and the said relaxation was not utilized and applied
by the petitioner which indicates that he is a non performer.
6. The learned Single Judge after evaluating the
respective contentions of the parties dismissed the writ petition
having formed an opinion that there is no illegality in the action
WA No.1871/2019
taken by the LIC. However, it was pointed out that if there is any
factual issues to be raised by the petitioner, it is open for him to
take up the matter before the appellate authority.
7. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for
the appellant is that clubbing together the appraisal process of
three years has defeated the very purpose of the system and he
was denied a fair opportunity to take up performance of each
year with the competent authority in terms of the relevant
provisions of the Special Rules. He has also a contention that the
instructions in Ext.P8 circular which contains the implementing
provisions of the rule have not been properly complied with.
Ext.P8 circular does not make any difference in the factual
aspects involved in the matter, which are only certain instructions
given pursuant to the amendment to the rules.
8. We heard the learned counsel appearing for LIC as well
who submits that LIC has invoked Rule 6(8) of the Special Rules,
to terminate the service of the petitioner. Rule 6(8) reads as
under:
"6.xxxxx
(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub rules (1) to (7)
WA No.1871/2019
where the annual remuneration of a Development Officer in any
preceding year (hereafter in this sub-rule referred to as the
"relevant year") exceeds 38% of the eligible premium of that
year and the aggregate of the annual remuneration in the
relevant year and the appraisal year immediately preceding the
relevant year exceeds 38% of the aggregate of the eligible
premium in those two years, his services shall be liable to be
terminated in accordance with rule 7."
Rule 7 is the provision by which service of an officer is
terminated, which reads as under:
"7. Termination of service in certain cases (1) Where a
Development Officer has failed to conform to the expense limit
and where no opportunity to conform to such limit could be
given under the provisions of rule 6, the Zonal Manager may
terminate his services after giving him three months notice or
salary in lieu thereof:
Provided that the Development Officer shall be given an
opportunity to show cause against such proposed termination
of his service."
In sub-rule (8) of Rule 6, which we have extracted, by virtue of
the 2016 amendment, the figure 38% has been amended to 50%.
9. Apparently, the Rule permits LIC to take into
consideration three appraisal years for evaluating the eligibility of
the candidate to remain in service. What we find is that LIC had
acted only in accordance with the statutory provisions. When
there is no illegality in LIC considering appraisals and it is in
WA No.1871/2019
accordance with the statutory provision, this Court cannot
interfere in the matter.
10. Learned counsel tried to emphasis on an argument
that he was not put to notice regarding individual years appraisal.
Such an argument cannot be accepted especially in view of the
fact that every person working as Development Officer will be
fully aware of the specific details regarding the annual
remuneration and the eligible premium in respect of that year. If
there is any defect in the computation, those are all matters to be
taken up before the fact finding authority and this Court cannot
sit in judgment over such matters.
11. We are therefore of the view that the learned Single
Judge had correctly evaluated the scope of jurisdiction in the
matter and had even permitted the petitioner to approach the
appellate authority in the event of any factual errors in the
impugned order. But as far as jurisdiction of LIC to initiate action
in terms of Rule 6(8), r/w Rule 7, we are of the view that there is
justification on the part of the learned Single Judge to have
rejected the claim of the petitioner.
In the result, we do not find any grounds to interfere with
WA No.1871/2019
the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Writ appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
Rp True Copy JUDGE
PS to Judge
