Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs A.Ashraf Ali on 7 April, 2025
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: J.Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.A.(MD)No.56 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No.56 of 2023
and
CMP(MD)No.612 of 2023
1. The Managing Director,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Central Office, Yogakshama,
Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai.
2. The Zonal Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Annasalai, Chennai – 2.
3. The Senior Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Sellur, Madurai – 2. ... Appellants
Vs.
A.Ashraf Ali ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent
against the order of this Court in W.P(MD)No.17380 of 2019, dated
02.08.2022.
Page No.1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:20 pm )
W.A.(MD)No.56 of 2023
For Appellants : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For Respondent : Mr.H.Mohamed Imran for
M/s.Ajmal Associates
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.SRIMATHY, J.)
This writ appeal is directed against the order made in
W.P(MD)No.17380 of 2019, dated 02.08.2022.
2. The respondent / writ petitioner was originally
appointed as Apprentice Development Officer by the appellants
Corporation on 26.09.1987 and thereafter, confirmed as Development
Officer on 01.04.1989. After rendering service for about 27 years, his
services were terminated through the order dated 10.03.2014, by stating
that his performance was not satisfactory as per the appraisal.
Thereafter, when the respondent had sought for reappointment as
Assistant or Record Clerk to do the administrative work in Class-III
posts, his request was rejected through the order dated 02.07.2019.
Against the said order, the respondent filed the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:20 pm )
3. The Writ Court, considering Rule 15 of the Life
Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision of
Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules 2009, allowed the writ
petition. The relevant passage of the order passed by the Writ Court is
extracted hereunder:
''3. As per the aforesaid Rule, when a Development Officer
completes seven years of service and is less than 55 years of age, he
would be eligible for reappointment in Class III posts either as an
Assistant or Record Clerk. Thus, the entitlement under Rule 15 is a
mandatory condition to grant re-employment to such Development
Officers, subject to the condition that he should have completed seven
years of service and should be less than 55 years of age. If that be so,
the rejection of the petitioner's request for re-employment in Class III
posts, would be in contradiction to the mandatory provisions under
Rule 15, which entitles the Development Officer to seek the post of
Assistant or Record Clerk.
4. Incidentally, Rule 18 of the Life Insurance Corporation
of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 provides that whenever an
employee, being a Development Officer is re-employed back into
service, his service prior to his reemployment shall be counted for the
“qualifying service”.
5. In the result, the impugned order dated 02.07.2019 is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:20 pm )
quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the third
respondent herein to pass appropriate orders notionally appointing
the petitioner to the post of Assistant or Record Clerk in Class III,
with effect from 02.07.2019 and that he is deemed to have retired
from service on the date of attaining the age of superannuation.
While passing such orders, the third respondent herein shall also
pass orders taking into account the past service of the petitioner in
the post of Development Officer, as qualifying service, for the
purpose of calculating the retirement and pensionary benefits. Such
orders shall be passed, atleast within a period of six (6) weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.''
4. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the
appellants would state that as per Rule 15 of the Life Insurance
Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms
and Conditions of Service) Rules 2009, reappointment is not automatic,
but the applicant has to satisfy the criteria regarding his past conduct
and suitability. Further, the finding of the Writ Court that providing
reemployment under Rule 15 is mandatory upon the applicant fulfils the
twin condition of 7 years of service and having age less than 55 years, is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:20 pm )
arbitrary since the applicant is not suitable in view of his past record of
service, where he was terminated on the ground of under performance.
However, without considering the same, the Writ Court has erroneously
allowed the writ petition. Thus, the order of the Writ Court is liable to
be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent would state that
the respondent was terminated from service on the ground of under
performance and not due to the grave charges or serious misconduct
and further, he has also satisfied the twin condition stipulated under
Rule 15 of the abovesaid rules. Therefore, he cannot be denied
reemployment to Class III posts on the ground of suitability. The Writ
Court has dealt with the case in proper perspective and rightly allowed
the writ petition. Thus, the impugned order does not require
interference by this Court.
6. Heard both sides.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:20 pm )
7. Perusal of Rule 3(3) of the Life Insurance Corporation
of India (Re-appointment of Terminated Development Officers) Rules,
1990, shows that in determining the applicant's suitability for
reappointment, the Committee shall have regard to the applicant's past
record of service, familiarity with the nature of the work appurtenant to
the post to which he seeks reappointment and such other factors as may
be considered relevant by it. The respondent has rendered 27 years of
service as Development Officer in the appellants corporation. He was
terminated due to under performance and not due to any grave charges
of serious misconduct. Considering the length of service put in by the
respondent and his experience, the respondent cannot be said to be
unsuitable for reappointment as Assistant or Record Clerk to do the
administrative work in Class-III posts, which are only clerical posts.
8. Though Rule 3(3) of the Life Insurance Corporation of
India (Re-appointment of Terminated Development Officers) Rules,
1990, stipulates that the applicant's past record of service, familiarity
with the nature of the work appurtenant to the post to which he seeks
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:20 pm )
reappointment, have to be considered for reemployment, in our view,
that alone cannot be the criteria to reject the request of the respondent
for reemployment to Class-III posts. An official in the higher level post
cannot be said to be non-suitable for clerical post merely because of his
under performance in higher level post which resulted in termination.
The under performance of the respondent might have been the reason
for termination from the post of Development Officer, but the same
reason and his past record of service in the said post cannot be cited for
rejecting the request for reemployment to Class-III posts which are only
clerical posts. If such approach is adopted in every case, then the very
object of providing reemployment under Rule 15 of the Life Insurance
Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms
and Conditions of Service) Rules 2009 itself will be defeated. Even the
rejection order for reemployment also does not narrate any specific
ground or incident to suit the same under the purview of Rule 3(3) of
the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Re-appointment of Terminated
Development Officers) Rules, 1990, to reject the request of the
respondent on the ground of suitability. As stated supra, except the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:20 pm )
ground of under performance as Development Officer, there is no grave
charge or serious conduct is levelled against the respondent, to prima
facie disqualify his candidature for reemployment. Such grounds are not
made out in the case of the respondent. Therefore, we are not inclined
to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Judge.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[J.N.B., J.] [S.S.Y., J.]
07.04.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
To:
1. The Managing Director,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Central Office, Yogakshama,
Jeevan Bima Marg,
Mumbai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:20 pm )
2. The Zonal Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Annasalai, Chennai – 2.
3. The Senior Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Sellur, Madurai – 2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:20 pm )
J.NISHA BANU, J.
and
S.SRIMATHY, J.
bala
JUDGMENT MADE IN
DATED : 07.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:20 pm )
