COURT OF KERALA v. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 26TH POUSHA, 1945 WA NO. 2015 OF 2022 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DTD 15.12.2022 IN WP(C) 28655/2020 OF APPELLANT/PETITIONER: HIGH COURT OF KERALA T.G. SUBHASH AGED 58 YEARS S/O. T.G. GOPINATHAN, 'LEKSHMI KRIPA', MATHRUKA NAGAR - 123, ULIYANKOVIL P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691019 BY ADV SHABU SREEDHARAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 2 3 4 5 THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, YOGAKSHEMA BUILDING, JEEVAN BEEMA MARG, MUMBAI - 400021 THE CHIEF (SBA), LIC OF INDIA, YOGAKSHEMA BUILDING, JEEVAN BEEMA MARG, MUMBAI - 400021 THE ZONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600002 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004 THE BRANCH MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, BRANCH NO. 11, KADAPPAKKADA P.O., KOLLAM - 691008 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 16.01.2024, ALONG WITH WA.2014/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Writ Appeal Nos.2014 and 2015 of 2022 3 AMIT RAWAL & C.S.SUDHA, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- Writ Appeal Nos.2014 and 2015 of 2022 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2024 J U D G M E N T C.S.Sudha, J. These writ appeals have been filed by the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.2624/2017 and W.P.(C)No.28655/2020 against the judgment dated 15/12/2022 dismissing the writ petitions. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in W.P.(C)No.2624/2017.

2. The point to be decided in these intra court appeals is whether the amounts paid to the petitioner under the head 'Office Maintenance Allowance' (OMA), which according to the respondent/Corporation has been paid by mistake, is liable to be recovered from the former. The petitioner has been working as Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (the Corporation) since 1992. As per Ext.P1 dated 27/04/2009 the Corporation had introduced a scheme known as Senior Business Associates' Scheme (SBAS). As per Ext.P2 dated 10/06/2009, the petitioner was authorised to work as SBA as per which he was entitled for several benefits including OMA stipulated in Exts.P1 and P2. OMA is meant for maintaining a full-fledged alternate LIC office facilitation centre Writ Appeal Nos.2014 and 2015 of 2022 4 outside the premises of the Corporation at a public place in the name of 'Life Plus Office'. Thus the petitioner was maintaining a separate office since 10/06/2009. In the year 2013, there was a fall in the insurance industry, cost variations occurred and there was a resultant hike in cost- ratio, therefore, the petitioner was not able to achieve the stipulated bench marks and therefore he opted out of the SBA Scheme with effect from 01/08/2013. As per Ext.P3 dated 13/07/2015 the Corporation brought another additional OMA Scheme on 13/07/2015 for its business development under the name 'Scheme for SBAs including 5% cost-ratio for running Life Plus offices'. Such SBAs were treated in the Non Regular Senior Business Associates (NRSBA) OMA Scheme. The SBAs who had exited the Scheme on or after 01/04/2015 were eligible for consideration under Ext.P3 Scheme provided they had worked continuously as regular SBAs for atleast two financial years. In continuation of Ext.P3, Ext.P4 circular dated 27/08/2015 was issued for extending the benefits to those who had exited the SBA Scheme on or after 01/04/2014. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application dated 10/08/2015 for including him in the NRSBA Scheme. The Corporation authorities after complying with the necessary formalities sanctioned payment of OMA as per Ext.P6 dated 12/10/2015. Thereafter it was observed, in an internal audit conducted in Writ Appeal Nos.2014 and 2015 of 2022 5 the Corporation, that the petitioner was not eligible to get OMA and hence as per Ext.P7 dated 06/12/1996, he was directed to remit the excess amount given. Aggrieved by Ext.P7, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 to Ext.P10 representations. However, without considering his representations or hearing him, the Corporation issued Ext.P11 dated 14/01/2017 by which the petitioner was directed to remit a total amount of ₹3,01,200/- on receipt of the letter. Pursuant to Ext.P11, the petitioner submitted Ext.P12 representation. The representation has not been considered so far. Hence, the writ seeking setting aside of Ext.P7 recovery order and Ext.P11 ultimatum as the same are unconstitutional, unjust, illegal and arbitrary. There was a further prayer to direct the second respondent to facilitate the SBA corner/enclosure in the Branch premises to the petitioner as stipulated in Exts.P4 and P13 for conducting his day-to-day business activities in the branch office.

3. The respondent Corporation filed counter affidavit contending that as the petitioner had exited the SBA Scheme on 01/08/2013 he was thereafter not entitled to OMA in accordance with the 2015 Scheme or for any reinstatement as SBA thereafter.

4. W.P.(C)No.28655/2020 was filed seeking the following reliefs- “(1) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to refrain from Writ Appeal Nos.2014 and 2015 of 2022 6 implementing the scheme covered by Exhibit-P6. (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner as NRSBA and grant him sufficient time to acquire the required qualification so as to get re-instated as SBA. (iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to disburse the reduced OMA henceforth along with its arrears, disburse the benefit of monthly meal coupon henceforth with its arrears, disburse the entertainment allowance henceforth with its arrears. (iv) To Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue operating the Life Plus Office and to sign on the portal and also to provide him the opportunity to attend high level trainings for career development. (v) And to pass such other appropriate writs, orders or directions which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case so as to secure the ends of justice.”

5. The learned single Judge dismissed both the writ petitions by the impugned judgment. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in appeal.

7. Heard. The receipt of the amounts towards OMA is not disputed by the petitioner. The fact that he had exited the Scheme with effect from 01/08/2013 is also admitted. Thereafter as per Ext.P6 dated 12/10/2015 the petitioner was granted reduced OMA as a NRSBA. This is also not Writ Appeal Nos.2014 and 2015 of 2022 7 disputed. The Corporation realising its mistake, without much delay, that is, on 06/12/2016 called upon the petitioner to repay the amounts received towards OMA as he was ineligible for the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to substantiate the point that the petitioner was in fact legally entitled to OMA. The only argument advanced is that the petitioner had already expended the amounts received for the conduct and maintenance of his office and hence the amounts cannot be recovered from him. We are afraid that the said argument cannot be countenanced as it is not supported by any provision of law, Rules or Regulations governing the field. Hence we find no infirmity in the findings of the learned single Judge. In the result, the appeal sans merit and accordingly is dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Sd/- Sd/- C.S.SUDHA JUDGE ami/