High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 1047/2003 B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Legal Reasoning
In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 24.10.2002 (Annexure 16), the letters dated 20.10.1998 (Annexure 4) , 12.12.1998 (Annexure-6) and 21.03.2002 (Annexure-13). Vide the impugned order dated 24.10.2002 services of the petitioner was terminated on expiry of 3(three) months period from the date of receipt of the copy of the order in terms of the provisions of Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revisio n of certain terms and conditions of service) Rules, 1989 (Rules, 1989 for short ).
Legal Reasoning
2. Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent corporation. Heard Mr. M Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. KK 3. The facts in brief may be noted at the outset: The petitioner was appointed as an Apprentice Development Officer vide a ppointment order dated 23.08.1993. Accordingly he joined his duties in the month of August, 1993. The appointment of the petitioner so made was pursuant to a re gular selection comprising of written, oral and medical test and the selection w as conducted pursuant to a notified selection. The initial posting of the petiti oner was at Goalpara Branch with Headquarter at Agia. On successful completion o f the period of probation, his services being found to be suitable for appointme nt on regular basis was confirmed with effect from 01.09.1995 vide letter dated 19.10.1995. The further facts of the petitioner’s case is that the place where t he petitioner was posted i.e., Agia was not at all conducive for LICI activities /business. The earlier incumbents posted at the same place also had failed to es tablish the business of LICI therein. This has happened because of lack of enthu siasm among the people for life insurance and infrastructural facilities, the pr oblem of recurring floods, lack of adequate number of salaried personal in the a rea etc., contributed to the difficulties being faced by the petitioner in estab lishing the business of LICI in the area he was posted to. The petitioner by din t of his hard work was successful initially to get a foot hold in the area, but due to the aforesaid problem business of the petitioner started diminishing day by day. The petitioner brought this aspect of the matter to the notice of his hi gher authorities with request for a transfer to another area and/or to any other posts in the administrative side. When the matter rested as thus, without any r hyme or reason, the authorities stopped paying salary to the petitioner w.e.f. N ovember, 1997 and despite repeated appeals being preferred by the petitioner the same were not released. Though the authorities were well aware about the reason s existing for the low-business generation from the area wherein the petitioner was posted but it was ignored instead as a measure of punishment proceeded to st op the payment of salary to the petitioner. The petitioner appealed verbally as well as by way of submitting petitions before the respondent authorities about t he difficulties being faced by him in generation of business in the Headquarter wherein he was posted and prayed for release of his salaries and also for placem ent in any other department commensurating to his educational qualifications, he being a first division holder in B.Sc (Agriculture). The petitioner was forced to continue his work without being paid any remuneration and instead of sending a experienced Development Officer to Agia, it was the petitioner who was very ne w to the service was picked up for posting at Agia where any Development Officer ever could be successful before the petitioner joined there. Though the petitio ner continued to serve the Corporation without any salary he was surprised to re ceive a letter dated 20.10.1998 intimating him that his services are liable to b e terminated under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 read with Rule 8 of the 1989 Rules. By the said letter, the petitioner was directed to submit his reply as against the allegation made therein. The petitioner on receipt of the said letter immediate ly submitted his representation on 07.11.1998 highlighting therein the circumsta nces in which the business activities were affected. In the said representation also the petitioner reiterated his prayer to transfer him to some other place or department and thereby to give him a chance to improve upon and to recover his position and to promote the growth of business. Subsequently, the Divisional Man ager, Bongaigaon Division vide his letter dt. 12-12-98 intimated the petitioner that his reply has been forwarded to the Zonal Manager for a decision. According to petitioner the authorities who had issued the letters dated 20.10.98 and 12. 12.98 were aware about the ground realities existing in the area where the petit ioner was posted. However, they totally ignored the various requests made by the petitioner. Due to non release of the salaries of the petitioner as well as for attending the genuine problems faced by the petitioner by the authorities, the petitioner became mentally depressed and was under medical treatment as per advi ce of the Doctor. Gradually his condition deteriorated and he was taken to Delhi by his family members for further treatment. However, the petitioner intimated about the same to the authorities annexing therein the medical certificate in su pport of his claim that the petitioner had to remain at New Delhi for his treatm ent. Inspite of apprising the authorities about his change of residence at New D elhi, the authorities proceeded to send two letters dated 16.10.2000 and 10.02.2 001 respectively to the petitioner at his earlier address. Due to subsequent cha nge of his place of residence, the petitioner could not receive the said letter and received the same only in the month of June, 2001 and immediately on receipt of the letters, the petitioner vide representation dated 05.06.2001 replied to the letters dated 16.10.2000 and 10.02.2001 highlighting therein the reasons nec essitating his absence from Headquarter w.e.f. October 1997 as alleged in the sa id letters. The petitioner had continued to work at Agia till proceeding to New Delhi for treatment inspite of the fact that his salaries were stopped w.e.f. No vember, 1997. When the petitioner was declared medically fit, the petitioner pro ceeded to resume his duties on 18.02.2002 by submitting a report as regards resu mption of duty on 18.02.2002. Along with the said report, the petitioner also en closed a fitness certificate issued by the Doctor attending him. The Branch Mana ger, LICI, Goalpara Branch vide his letter dated 28.02.2002 intimated the petiti oner that his letter dated 18.02.2002 has been forwarded to the Divisional Offic e at Bongaigaon and as and when directions are received from the higher authorit ies as regards his requests for joining his duties, the same would be communicat ed to him. When the petitioner was expecting a communication with a direction to resume his duties, the petitioner received a letter dated 21.03.2002 issued by the Zonal Manager, LICI, Calcutta communicating to him regarding initiation of p roceeding under Rule 7(8) and 8 of the Rules 1989 for termination of his service s and he was directed to submit his show cause reply as regards his proposed ter mination from service. The petitioner on 19.04.2002 submitted his reply to the s how cause notice issued vide letter dated 21.03.2002, inter alia, stating therei n the genuine difficulties being faced by him and also requested the authorities to take into consideration his entire service records and not to decide on his fate basing on an isolated year. The petitioner further prayed in the said repre sentation to drop the show cause notice and to transfer him to any other place b y giving him an opportunity to prove his ability and skill. Thereafter the petit ioner submitted several representations, however, the same have evoked no respon se. Ultimately vide impugned order dated 24.10.2002 directions were issued by th e Zonal Manager, for termination of his services under provisions of the aforesa id Rules w.e.f. expiry of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the said o rder by the petitioner. The petitioner received the impugned order on 19.11.2002 . 4. In the present writ proceeding, Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the petiti oner has prayed before this Court to consider the petitioner’s age who is presen tly 45 years old. The main contentions of Mr. Nath is that at this stage the pet itioner will not be able to get any job, moreso, Rule 19 of the Rules 1989 provi des reappointment of the terminated Development Officer, the same being relevant is quoted hereunder: (cid:28) Rule 19. Reappointment of the terminated Development Officer: If a Dev elopment Officer, whose services are terminated in pursuance of Rule 8 has compl eted atleast 10 years of service in Class II on the date of such termination and has not completed 55 years of age, he shall be eligible for reappointment in th e service of the Corporation to do administrative work in Class III either as As sistant or Record Clerk in accordance with such qualification and suitability as may be specified under Clause (CC) Sub Section 2 of Section 48 of the Act & & & & (cid:29). 5. Referring to the aforesaid provisions, Mr. Nath has submitted that on th e date of termination, the petitioner had completed 9 years 7 months of service, just 5 months short in completing 10 years and the age of the petitioner on the date of termination was 35 years. In this connection, Mr. Nath has brought to t he notice of the Court Rule 16 of the 1989 Rules which is quoted hereunder: (cid:28)Special Cases (i) the Managing Director may review any case and allow such reli ef, having regard to the merits of the case of the Development Officer, if the D evelopment Officer is not entitled to the benefits of Rule 11 by reason only of his on his failure to conform to the expense limit in the succeeding year & & & & & (cid:29). Considering the above, Mr. Nath has submitted that as per the aforesaid 6. Rule, the Managing Director is empowered to review any case and allow some relie f if deemed necessary. In the present case in hand, on the date of termination of the petitione 7. r, he has completed a period of 9 years 7 months of service from the date of ini tial appointment. However, Mr. Nandi, learned counsel for the LICI has submitted that the petitioner’s service was confirmed only on 19.10.1995 w.e.f., 01.09.19 95 and in that case the petitioner had actually completed his confirmed services for about 7 years and, therefore, submits Mr. Nandi that the petitioner has act ually completed his service only for 7 years and not 9 years 7 months as submitt ed by Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the submissions made by Mr. Nandi, Mr. Nath has brought to th 8. e notice of this court Rule 15 of the New Rules i.e. Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revisions of Certain Terms and Conditions of Serv ice) Rules 2009 which came into force after the Rules of 1989 was repealed. Rule 15 of the Rules of 2009 is reproduced hereinbelow: - (cid:28) Rule 15. Re-appointment of terminated Development Officer: If a Develo pment Officer whose services are terminated in pursuance of Rule 7 has completed atleast seven years of service in Class II on the date of such termination and has not completed 55 years of age, he shall be eligible for reappointment in the service of the Corporation to do administrative work in Class III either as Ass istant or Record Clerk in accordance with such qualification and suitability as may be specified under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Reappointment of Terminated Development Officers) Rules 1990 & & & & (cid:29). 9. According to Mr. Nath, assuming the petitioner has completed 7 years of confirmed service as Development Officer and he has also not completed 55 years of age, in that case also he is entitled for reappointment in the service of the corporation to do administrative work in Class- III either as Assistant or Reco rd Clerk in accordance with his qualification and suitability in terms of the ma ndate of Rule 15 of the aforesaid Rule, 2009. Mr. Nath has submitted that in view of the aforesaid provisions as well 10. as Rule 1990, the limited prayer is to allow the petitioner to submit a represen tation/petition before the Managing Director LICI to review his case considering the hardships/difficulties etc., faced by him while discharging his duties at A gia under Goalpara district as well as taking into account the age of the petiti oner.
Decision
11. Considering the submission so made, the writ petition is disposed of wit h a direction to the petitioner to submit a representation before the Managing D irector, LICI and the Managing Director while disposing of the representation of the petitioner shall also take note of the provision of Rules of 1989 and Rules of 2009 both of which permit positive reconsideration of re-appointment of the petitioner to do administrative work in class-III either as Assistant or Record Clerk. 12. The Managing Director would dispose of the representation so submitted b y the petitioner within a period of 3(three) months from the date of submission of the representation by the petitioner. While submitting the representation, th e petitioner shall also submit a certified copy of this order. 13. However, there shall be no order as to costs. With the aforesaid direction(s), this writ petition stands disposed of.