Life Insurance Corporation Of ... vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 80 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

     MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 14TH POUSHA, 1942

             RP.No.106 OF 2019 IN WP(C)NO. 14033/2015

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 14033/2015(D) OF HIGH COURT OF
                              KERALA


PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:

      1      LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
             REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL OFFICE,
             YOGAKSHEMA, JEEVAN BIMA MARG, MUMBAI, PIN-400 021.

      2      THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER
             LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL
             OFFICE, JEEVAN PRAKASH, NAGAMPADOM, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686
             001.

             BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND 3RD RESPONDENT:

      1      AJITH KUMAR K.J
             AGED 48 YEARS
             ASSISTANT, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
             BRANCH OFFICE I, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

      2      SALLESH KUMAR K.S.
             HIGHER GRADE ASSISTANT (PROGRAMMER), DIVISIONAL
             OFFICE(KGSD), LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OFINDIA,
             KOTTAYAM-686 001.

      3      MATHEW JOSEPH
             ASSISTANT, LIFE INSURNACE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
             BRANCH OFFICE, VAIKOM-686 141.

      4      SYRIAC VARGHESE
             ASSISTANT, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
             DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NAGAMPADOM, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

      5      SAVIOUR M.T.
             HIGHER GRADE ASSISTANT, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF
             INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE, MAVELIKKARA-690 101.

      6      UNION OF INDIA
             REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
             DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, JEEVAN DEEP
 RP.No.106 OF 2019 IN WP(C)NO.14033/2015

                                     2

             BUILDING, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110 001.

             R1-5   BY   ADV.   SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
             R1-5   BY   ADV.   SMT.N.SANTHA
             R1-5   BY   ADV.   SRI.V.VARGHESE
             R1-5   BY   ADV.   SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
             R1-5   BY   ADV.   SRI.S.A.ANAND
             R1-5   BY   ADV.   SMT.K.N.REMYA
             R1-5   BY   ADV.   SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA
             R1-5   BY   ADV.   SHRI.VISHNU V.K.
             R1-5   BY   ADV.   KUM.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY



             CGC. SMT.H.SUBHA LEKSHMI

       THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
  04.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP.No.106 OF 2019 IN WP(C)NO.14033/2015

                                   3




                                ORDER

Dated this the 4th day of January 2021

The LIC has filed this Revision Petition

pointing out that the implementation of Annexure

A1 order by way of Exts.P40 to P44 orders fixing

the pay of the petitioners was erroneous.

2. The learned counsel for the Review

Petitioners pointed out that though the basic

order by which the Review Petitioners' pay was

fixed was Annexure A1, while implementing it,

the dearness allowance was again reckoned that

too after reckoning the basic pay at a higher

rate. This Court had disposed of the Writ

Petition taking note of Exts.P40 to P44 orders

re-fixing the pay of the petitioners in the Writ

Petition. When it is pointed out that the

calculation was erroneous, I am of the view that

the judgment requires review. RP.No.106 OF 2019 IN WP(C)NO.14033/2015

3. Adv.Sri.V.Varghese, the learned counsel

appearing for the Writ Petitioners vehemently

argued that the ex-service men who were employed

in the year 2009 have been taken for a ride for

more than five times in the matter of the

fixation of their pay. But it can not be

disputed that the judgment was rendered taking

note of Exts.P40 to P44 orders issued by the LIC

itself which is stated to have been arrived at

mistakenly.

4. Therefore, I am of the view that the

matter has to be heard again on merits with

liberty to parties to place on record additional

pleadings. However, since the petitioners were

granted the benefit by the LIC itself and they

were under the impression that they are drawing

the pay for which they are legitimately

entitled, the review petition is allowed on

condition that there shall be no recovery till

the Writ Petition is disposed of. RP.No.106 OF 2019 IN WP(C)NO.14033/2015

Accordingly, the judgment dated 23/10/2018

in W.P.(C)No.14033/2015 is recalled and the Writ

Petition is restored to file.

W.P.(C)No.14033/2015

Post the Writ Petition on 25/01/2021 as per

roster.

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA JUDGE DM RP.No.106 OF 2019 IN WP(C)NO.14033/2015

APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO.CO/PER/ER-A/147/2017 DATED 6.1.2017 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL).

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.12.2018 ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.12.2018 ISSUED TO THE SECOND PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.12.2018 ISSUED TO THE SECOND PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.12.2018 ISSUED TO THE THIRD PETITINOER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.12.2018 ISSUED TO THE FOURTH PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

   ANNEXURE A7        TRUE   COPY   OF   THE  LETTER    DATED
                      27.12.2018    ISSUED   TO    THE    5TH

PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

   ANNEXURE A8        TRUE   COPY   OF   THE  LETTER    DATED
                      27.12.2018    ISSUED   TO    THE    5TH

PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE