Anand Kishore Pareek vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—The petitioner in the present writ petition, has prematurely approached this Court after disposal of the earlier writ petition being SBCWP No. 1896/2014- Anand Kishore Pareek Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., decided on 13.03.2014, in which this Court observed as under: -

The petitioner was working as Development Officer in the respondent Oriental Insurance Company. Certain disputes about his prolonged illness and leave taken by him arose as he was absent from duty for the period 26/2/2013 to 19/7/2013 for 143 days. When he reported back on duty after the said date, the petitioner was not allowed to resume his duties. The petitioner has been making representations to the respondent Insurance Company for allowing him to join his duties and copies of such representations are placed at Annex. 12 dated 9/9/2013 and Annex. 13 dated 26/9/2013. The petitioner, thereafter, has also said to have applied for taken voluntary retirement and a notice for the said purpose has been served upon the respondent Company vide Annex. 19 dated 4/3/2014, purportedly, to take voluntary retirement w.e.f. 3/6/2014.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the VRS application of the petitioner is not likely to be accepted before the petitioner is first allowed to resume his duties and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have not allowed the petitioner to join duties from 23/7/2013.

The dispute in the present case, obviously, require determination of question of facts as to for what reasons, the petitioner was on leave and whether that leave was sanctioned and whether the period of his absence can be regularised against the leave due in his account or not. All these questions are, admittedly, yet to be decided by the respondent employer.

In this view of the matter, no mandamus direction can be given to the respondent Company to allow the petitioner to resume his duties and the respondent Company is expected to decide the pending representations of the petitioner in this regard.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction and liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent Company with a representation and the competent authority of the respondent Company shall decide his application/representation, after giving an opportunity of hearing to him, by a speaking order expeditiously within one month from today.

Thereafter though the petitioner was asked to submit his representation to the Chief Regional Manager and the said representation has been filed by him on 11.04.2014 vide representation (Annex. 23 to CW No. 4777/2014), however, the same has not been decided by the said authority and, in absence of the same, the present writ petition preferred by the petitioner is considered to be premature.

The petitioner in another writ petition has also assailed the order (Annex. 9 to CW No. 4808/2014) dated 24.02.2014, in which he was placed at the minimum of Pay Scale of Development Officer Grade-II Rs. 8,280/- with effect from 01.04.2013 on the basis of findings of authority concerned that cost ratio of the petitioner was continuously high for last 10 years from the year 2003-04 to 2012-13. The said order was passed by the Chief Regional Manager.

Mr. Anil Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as Development Officer Grade-I, and therefore, without giving an opportunity of hearing, he could not be placed in the Development Officer Grade-II at Rs. 8,280/- on the basis of aforesaid continuous high cost ratio.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the order dated 24.02.2014, which is quoted herein below for ready reference, this Court is of the opinion that the case necessarily involves determination of question of facts on the basis of which the cost ratio is determined by the respondent-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Since the de-gradation to the Development Officer Grade-II of the petitioner at Rs. 8,280/-, the minimum pay scale, based on his high cost ratio for past ten years, these questions cannot be examined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The order dated 24.02.2014 (Annex. 9 to CW No. 4808/14) reads as under: -

RE: Warning letter under Paragraph 11 of General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other conditions of Service of Development Staff) Scheme, 1976.

Your attention is involved to the provisions of Paragraph 11 of the General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other conditions of Service of Development Staff) Scheme, 1976 (hereafter referred as "Said Scheme"). Every Development Staff was required to work with such cost as to maintain his cost ratio within the limits stipulated in Sub-clause (b) of Clause (17) of Paragraph 3 of the said Scheme. The said Paragraph 11 further provided the action/(a) if the performance of Development Officers was at cost ratio in excess of stipulated limits for the second and subsequent performance year in succession.

Your particular attention is now invited to Sub-paragraph (3) of Paragraph 11 of the said Scheme which provided for issue of letter of warning to the Development Staff whose cost ratio exceeded the stipulated limits for second and subsequent performance year in succession. In spite of various letter from RO/DO/BO for improvement in the performance, it has been observed that as against stipulated limit, your cost ratio has been continuously high from 2003-04 to 2012-13.

Based on continuously high cost ratio since 2003-04, now you have been fixed at the minimum Pay Scale of Development Officer Grade-II Rs. 8280/- w.e.f. 01.04.2013.

As per Scheme, if you do not improve your performance in the financial year 2013-14, you shall be liable to terminate from the services of the Company.

Please take a note of this warning letter and improve your performance so as to avoid consequences mentioned above.

Sd/-

Chief Regional Manager

It is for the petitioner to either make suitable representation to the next higher authority of the said company for redressal of his grievances or to file a civil suit in the matter u/s 9 of the CPC, 1908, so that such questions of facts can be determined by the competent civil court.

In view of above discussion, both the present writ petitions filed by the petitioner are misconceived and, therefore, the same are accordingly, dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.