Source : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118495839/
Madras High Court
R.Ramesh vs The Government Of India on 22 April, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
CAV ON 07/01/2013
DATED: 22/04/2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN
W.P.No.2861 of 2002
1.R.Ramesh
2.S.Sridaran
3.S.Lal Bhagadur ... Petitioners
vs.
1.The Government of India,
rep.by Joint Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Economic Affairs
Insurance Division,
New Delhi.
2.The Regional Manager (E & OS),
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Southern Zonal Office,
102, Anna Salai, Madras-2.
3.The Chairman,
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Central Office,
Yogakshema, Jeeban Bhima Marg,
Mumbai-400 021. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in his notification No.Nil, dated 22.06.2000, and quash the same as illegal, incompetent, ultra vires and unconstitutional in sofar as it denies the benefits of revised pay scales to employees, who have resigned or relieved from service between 01.07.1997 to 22.06.2000 and further direct the respondents to pay the arrears of pay under the above notification for the work extracted by respondents with interest at 24% till payment to the petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondents : Mrs.R.Maheswari, S.C.G.S.C. for R1
Mr.M.Vaidyanathan for R2 & R3
* * * * *
O R D E R
The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the notification, dated 22.06.2000, issued by the first respondent, in sofar as it denies the benefits of revised pay scales to the employees, who have resigned or relieved from service between 01.07.1997 to 22.06.2000 and to direct the respondents to pay the arrears of pay to the petitioners, under the said notification for the work extracted by respondents, with interest at 24% till the payment.
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioners submit that they were working in the office of the respondent Corporation in the post of Engineering Assistant Grade-II (Class-III). The first petitioner joined service on 02.07.1993 and resigned from the post on 25.02.1999. The second petitioner joined service on 06.11.1993 and resigned from the post on 25.01.1999. The third petitioner joined service on 01.07.1999 and resigned from the post on 21.11.1999. They resigned from the posts on account of the fact that they were selected by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as Assistant Engineers. The respondents issued a notification, dated 22.06.2000, which is impugned herein, introducing revised pay scale with retrospective effect to the employees of Class-III and Class-IV of the respondent Corporation. Revised pay scale benefits are to be given to the employees, who were in whole time salaried service in the permanent establishment of the Corporations on 01.08.1997 and also those, who joined service after the date of notification. But, the benefits of wage revision is denied to those employees, who had resigned on or before the date of notification irrespective of whether they are relieved or not during the period between 01.08.1997 and 22.06.2000, including both days.
3. They further submit that on coming to know of the said notification, they sent a representation to the respondent Corporation for further details and to consider the case of the petitioner and extend the revised pay scale benefits under the said notification, but there was no reply. Therefore, sent a notice, dated 23.04.2001, calling upon the respondents to consider their case and to pay the revised arrears with all benefits. However, the respondents had not responded. Hence, they have filed this writ petition seeking the relief as stated above.
4. The second and third respondents have filed a counter statement and denied all the allegations made in the affidavit except those that are specifically admitted herein and put the petitioners to strict proof of the same. The respondents submit that these respondents may be permitted to file additional counter affidavit, if any, at a later stage. The petition is not maintainable in law. The averments mentioned in paras 4 to 9 of the affidavit are objected to. The particulars of service of the petitioners are mentioned below:-
Sl.No.
Petitioner Name Post held Joining Date Resigned date R.Ramesh Eng. Gr-II 02.07.1993 25.02.1999 S.Sridharan Engr. Gr-II 06.11.1993 25.01.1999 S.Lalbaghadur Eng. Gr-II 02.07.1993 21.01.1999 All the petitioners resigned from the service of the Life Insurance Corporation of India on account of the fact that they were selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as Assistant Engineers in Public Works Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. It is true the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 48 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 has issued notification No.GSR 552 (E) on 22.06.2000 to make revision in terms and conditions of Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III & IV Employees Service Rules 1993. In Sub-clause 3 of Clause I of the said Rules, it has been provided as under. These rules shall be applicable to those Class III and Class IV employees who are in the whole time salaried service in the permanent establishment of the Corporation as on 01.08.1997 provided that the Class II and Class IV employees whose resignation had been accepted or whose services had been terminated under Rule 39 of LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 during the period from 01.08.1997 and the date of publication of this Notification in the Official Gazette shall not be eligible for the arrears on account of revision. As all the three petitioners have resigned from their services on 25.02.1999, 25.01.1999 and 21.01.1999 respectively they are not entitled to claim the benefits of the revised scales of pay as arrears.
5. The respondents 2 and 3 further submit that the Life Insurance Corporation was created under LIC of India Act, 1956, Section 48 of which empowers the Central Government to make rules by notification in the Official Gazette for carrying out the purposes of the Act.
The Life Insurance Corporation (herein after referred to as "the Corporation") was established under Section 3 of the Act as a Body Corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with powers subject to the provisions of the Act, to acquire, hold and dispose of property and which may be its name sue and be sued.
Section 6 deals with the functions of the Corporation.
The Central Government had in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 11(2) of the Act issued on 01.06.1957 an order known as (The LIC Alteration of the remuneration and other terms and conditions of service of employees) Order 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Standardization Order) providing for remuneration and other terms and conditions of service applicable to employees.
Section 48 of the LIC Act empowers the Central Government to make rules by notification in the Official Gazette for carrying out the purposes of the Act and vide sub Section (2) without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, to provide for all or any of the matters mentioned in the sub-section.
Section 49 of the LIC Act empowers the Corporation to make with previous approval of the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette for carrying out the purposes of the Act and vide sub section (2) without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, to provide for all or any of the matters mentioned in the sub section.
Before the amendment of Section 49 in 1981 by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Amendment) Act 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "Amendment Act"), the power of the Corporation to make regulations under sub section (2) of Section 49 included the power to provide for the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the Corporation. The Corporation has accordingly framed the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1956 providing for the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the Corporation.
Subsequently in super cession of these regulations, the Corporation has in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 49(2) (b) and (bb) of the Act framed regulations known as the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation 1960 providing for the terms and conditions of service of its employees.
The Provisions of clause cc of Subsection 2 of the Section 48 and any rules thereunder shall have effect not withstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or other authority and not withstanding anything contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, Settlement, Award or other instrument for the time being in force.
6. The respondents 2 and 3 further submit that the Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work is not applicable to this case. The Employees who resign and desert the Corporation cannot compare and claim the same benefits granted to retired and deceased employees who are committed and loyal workers. In other words there is nothing wrong in extending the benefits of Revised Scale of Pay with retrospective effect only to those loyal and committed workers and not extending it to those who left the service in search of greener pastures. The respondents further submit that the averments mentioned in grounds a, b and c of the petitioners affidavit are not correct. The averments that the impugned notification is discriminatory against the principles of Service Jurisprudence and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India are objected to. In Service Jurisprudence the words superannuation, voluntary retirement, compulsory retirement and resignation have clear and different connotations. The distinction between superannuation / voluntary retirement on the one hand and resignation on the other hand is well recognized. Retirement implies putting in the required minimum service and brings in the element of "Loyalty". Resignation implies the act of the employee / petitioners herein moving to pastures new and green.
7. The respondents 2 and 3 further submit that the petitioners cannot challenge the notification either on the ground of arbitrariness or discrimination in view of the fact that when the petitioners left the service their salary upto the date of their leaving the service was paid to them. There is no arrears. Nothing was due under the contract of employment. As stated above there is nothing wrong in extending the benefit of revised scale of pay only to those who fall under the category of loyal and committed workers and not extending to those like petitioners who resigned in search of better employment prospects. The distinction made is reasonable. It has a rationale nexus to the object sought to be achieved that is to reward and benefit those who are loyal to the Corporation. On the other hand, the petitioners have virtually deserted the Corporation by resigning to take up more lucrative and advantageous employment. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any benefits due to wage revision. Hence, the respondents entreat the Court to dismiss the above writ petition.
8. The highly competent counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioners were working in the office of the respondent-Corporation in the post of Engineering Assistant Grade II. The first petitioner joined the service on 02.07.1993 and resigned from the respondents office on 25.02.1999. The second petitioner had joined the service in the office of the respondent on 06.11.1993 and resigned from the post on 25.01.1999. The third petitioner had joined service on 02.07.1993 and resigned from the post on 21.01.1999. All the petitioners resigned from their respective posts on account of that they were selected by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as Assistant Engineers and posted in the Public Works Department of Tamil Nadu Government.
9. The highly competent counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents had issued notification and the pay scale was revised with retrospective effect to the employees of Class III and IV of the respondent-Corporation. As per the notification, the petitioners are entitled to receive benefits from the respondents' office as per the revised pay scale. This was not considered by the respondents, who rejected the same.
10. The highly competent counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 submits that the petitioners resigned from the Life Insurance Corporation since they were selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as Assistant Engineers in Public Works Department of the State. It is an admitted fact that the Insurance Corporation had issued notification on 22.06.2000 to make revision in terms of conditions of Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III and IV employees Service Rules. These rules shall be applicable to those who are class III and IV employees, who are in the whole time salaried service in the Corporation, as on 01.08.1997.
11. The highly competent counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 further submits that the Class III and IV employees, whose resignation had been accepted or whose services are terminated during the period from 01.08.1997 and the date of application of this notice in the official gazette shall not be eligible for the arrears on account of revised pay. All the three employees / petitioners have resigned from their services on 25.02.1999, 25.01.1999 and 25.01.1999 respectively. As such, they are not entitled to claim the benefits of the revised scale of pay as arrears.
12. The highly competent senior counsel Mrs.R.Maheswari, appearing for the first respondent submits that the Life Insurance Corporation was established under the LIC of India Act, 1956. As per Section 58 of the Act, the Central Government is empowered to make rules by notification in the official gazette. Further, the notification issued by the second and third respondents is appropriate for Class III and IV employees. The said notification is not applicable to the petitioners herein.
13. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the highly competent counsels on all sides and on perusing the instructions issued by the third respondent stating that the employees who have resigned or whose services have been terminated under Rule 39 of the Staff Rules, 1960, during the period from 01.08.1997 to the date of notification to 22.06.2000 and therefore, they are not entitled for any arrears. This court is of the view that in the instant case, the petitioners have resigned on 25.02.1999, 25.01.1999 and 21.01.1999 respectively. As such, it is evident that during the relevant period mentioned in the notification, they have resigned and hence, the prayer of the writ petitioners cannot be granted. Therefore, the above writ petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
22/ 04/ 2014
Index : Yes.
Internet : Yes.
k r k / r n s
C.S.KARNAN, J.
k r k /r n s
To
1.The Joint Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Government of India,
Department of Economic Affairs
Insurance Division,
New Delhi.
2.The Regional Manager (E & OS),
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Southern Zonal Office,
102, Anna Salai, Madras-2.
3.The Chairman,
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Central Office,
Yogakshema, Jeeban Bhima Marg,
Mumbai-400 021.
Pre-Delivery Order in
W.P.No.2861 of 2002
22/04/2014
