R.Suresh vs The Zonal Manager
2021 Latest Caselaw 1631 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

     FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 25TH POUSHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.27976 OF 2020(V)


PETITIONER:

               R.SURESH
               AGED 59 YEARS
               DEVELOPMENT OFFICER(RETD),
               LIC OF INDIA, RESIDING AT VALIYAVEEDU, PERETTIL,
               MOONGODU P O, VARKALA.

               BY ADV. SMT.D.P.RENU

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE ZONAL MANAGER
               LIC SOUTHERN ZONE,
               P B NO.2450, LIC BUILDING, 153,
               ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600002.

      2        LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
               REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
               JEEVAN PRAKASH, PATTOM, P O,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

               R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD         ON
15.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.27976 OF 2020                  2

                                 JUDGMENT

What the petitioner essentially requires in

this writ petition, going by the tenor of the

prayers sought, is that the directions in Ext.P3

judgment be directed to be implemented at the

earliest.

2. However, Shri.S.Easwaran, learned

Standing Counsel for the LIC, submits that

against Ext.P3 judgment, his clients have filed

W.A.Nos.290 of 2017 and 343 of 2017 and that

same are still pending. He, however, concedes

that there are no orders of interdiction granted

in the said Writ Appeals, but asserts that

unless the Division Bench delivers a judgment in

them, it would be premature for the petitioner

to seek implementation of Ext.P3. He, therefore,

prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

3. In reply, Smt.D.P.Renu, learned counsel

for the petitioner, affirms that no interim

orders have been issued in the afore mentioned

Writ Appeals and she, therefore, prays that

Ext.P3 be directed to be implemented,

particularly because the Appeals have been

pending for the last more than three years.

4. Even when I hear Smt.D.P.Renu as above,

the fact remains that the petitioner himself is

aware that Ext.P3 has been challenged by the LIC

in the afore mentioned Writ Appeals and that it

has been pending for the last more than three

years. Obviously, therefore, if he requires any

directions, he ought to have approached the

learned Division Bench, rather than having filed

this writ petition. I am, therefore, of the

certain view that this writ petition is

premature.

In the afore circumstances, this writ

petition is closed; however, leaving liberty to

the petitioner to approach this Court again, if

it is so necessary in future.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

MC/20.1.2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF LIC RULE 1989 DATED 8.11.1994.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF DEVELOPMENT OFFICERS (REVISION OF CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) RULES 1989.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.34629/2015 DATED 14.12.2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 4.10.2019 ISSUED BY LIC.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 1.11.2019 FILED BY PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REMINDER DATED 12.08.2020 FILED BY PETITIONER.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL


MC

                     (TRUE COPY)                PA TO JUDGE