AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.C. Chaurasia, J.—By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.8.2003 passed by the Senior Divisional Manager of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Opposite Party No. 4, order dated 23.12.1998 passed by Regional Manager (Marketing), Kanpur, Opposite Party No. 6 and the orders dated 23.4.1999, 1.5.1999 and 6.5.1999 issued in pursuance thereof by the Secretary (Marketing), Zonal Office, Kanpur, Marketing Manager, Divisional Office Lucknow and the Branch Manager, LIC, Trans Gomti Branch, Lucknow, the opposite party no. 7 as contained in Annexure No. 27, Annexure No. 7, Annexure No. 5, Annexure No. 3 and Annexure No. 4 respectively to this writ petition.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Opposite Parties to pay incentive Bonus and Additional conveyance Allowance on the business of the agency of Sri D.K. Gupta, to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1999 till date along with interest.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Opposite parties to continue to pay Incentive Bonus and Additional Conveyance Allowance on the business of agency of Sri D.K. Gupta to the petitioner.
The facts of the present case are that the petitioner was selected for appointment as Apprentice Development Officer in Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the LIC) in the year 1987 and after completion of his training, he was appointed as Probationary Development Officer on 8.1.1988 and thereafter he was confirmed on the post of Development Officer w.e.f. 8.1.1989. On the recommendation of the petitioner, agents were appointed by the competent authority for the business of LIC and they remain attached with the Development Officer concerned. As per Incentive Bonus Scheme of the LIC, concerned Development Officer gets bonus and Additional Conveyance Allowance on the business of their agents at the rate prescribed by the LIC from time to time after completion of one year of the business of the agents so appointed. On 6.1.1993 one Sri Dhirendra Kumar Gupta, son of a retired employee was appointed and attached by the competent authority as an agent and an agency was given to him and he started business under the petitioner and the petitioner was getting Incentive Bonus and Additional Conveyance Allowance regularly every year on the basis of the business of his agents including Sri Dhirendra Kumar Gupta. That all of sudden on 6.5.1999, the Branch Manager served an order on the petitioner for detaching the agency of Sri. D. K. Gupta in pursuance of the order dated 23.4.1999 sent from the Zonal Office Kanpur. The letter dated 23.4.1999 was sent on the basis of the decision taken by the Regional Manager (Marketing) on 23.12.1998. After receiving the letter dated 23.12.1998 the Senior Divisional Manager wrote a letter to Zonal Manager on 27.1.1999 stating therein that there was no illegality in granting the agency to Sri D. K. Gupta under the petitioner''s charge as there is no bar in issuing an agency to a relative of retired LIC employee and had requested to review the matter but his request was turned down.
Thereafter, petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order, filed an appeal before the Managing Director on 15.7.1999 but in the mean time an order dated 19.5.2000 for recovery of Incentive Bonus and other benefits was issued which was duly represented by the petitioner to the competent authority on 5.6.2000 with the prayer that the recovery be stayed till the disposal of his appeal. The petitioner again sent reminder on 19.5.2001 when he had not received any order or decision in respect of the appeal filed by him. Thereafter on 21.6.2001, Senior Divisional Manager informed the petitioner that his Memorial dated 5.6.2000 moved to the Chairman stand decided and as such the appeal had become infructuous.
Further, the petitioner was informed by the Senior Divisional Manager that his Appeal stood decided, the Zonal Manager forwarded reminder dated 19.5.2001 sent by the petitioner with strong recommendation in favour of the petitioner and requested for reviewing the matter and the said recommendation was forwarded by the Zonal Manager to Managing Director of the LIC vide his letter dated 28.8.2001. Since the petitioner was not communicated with any decision on his Appeal he again represented to the Chairman on 13.9.2002 & 12.4.2003 and requested for setting aside the order of detachment of agency of Sri D.K. Gupta which was again forwarded by the Senior Divisional Manager with strong recommendation. After a long gap, Senior Divisional Manager vide his letter dated 13.8.2003 informed the petitioner that competent authority had not found it possible to accept his request and the matter should not be referred again and the same should be treated as closed. Hence this writ petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that before passing the order of detachment petitioner was neither heard nor any notice was given to him and the order of detachment is wholly illegal being passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that there is no rule or circular of LIC which prohibits the grant of agency to a relative of a retired employee of the LIC.
Vide order dated 23.12.1998, the agency of Sri D. K. Gupta was withdrawn from the petitioner Development Officer. The order of withdrawl reads as under:
Sri K. Sahay
Sr. Divisional Manager
LIC of India
Divisional Office,
Lucknow.
Dear Sir,
Re: Complaint against Shri J. P. Singh, Development Officer, Trans Gomti Branch.
We find that Shri D. K. Gupta was granted agency bearing code No. 580/21N by Trans Gomti Branch on 6.1.1993 under the development Officer Shri J. P. Singh. This agency was granted after the retirement of Shri R. K. Gupta, Development Officer and father of the aforesaid agent Shri D. K. Gupta.
As per rules in force, agencies granted to relatives of retired employees of LIC have to be direct and not under any Development Officer. In view of this, you are advised to detach the agency of Shri D. K. Gupta from the organization of Shri J. P. Singh, Development Officer, immediately, under advice to us and proceed further as per Rules.
Yours Faithfully
Regional Manager (MKTG)
From the above quoted order, it is clear that the order of withdrawl is simplicitor. It is within the competence of the authority to grant and attach agency to a particular Development Officer of the LIC. The LIC is also competent to withdraw the agent from a particular Development Officer of the LIC, therefore the impugned order suffers from no illegality. Thus, the challenge on this ground fails.
The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the recovery sought to be made from the petitioner during the period Sri D. K. Gupta worked as agent is not permissible till Sri D. K. Gupta was the agent of the petitioner.
To the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the LIC submits that the agent in question had been wrongly recruited under the petitioner''s charge hence the petitioner was not entitled for being given any credit for the business done by Sri D. K. Gupta and the recovery has rightly been made from him. He further submits that Sri D. K. Gupta is the son of retired Development Officer of the LIC and the agency given to such person is treated only to be as ''Direct'' and he cannot be entrusted with the Development Officer in view of the Circular dated 9.7.1968. Further the decision of the Central Officer for detachment of the agency of Sri D. K. Gupta from the petitioner is in conformity with the Rules of the Corporation.
Perusal of records further reveals that there is no record to show that relatives, son or spouse are barred from being appointed as agent. No reason has also been mentioned in the order of recovery sought to be made from the petitioner during the period Sri D.K. Gupta worked as agent under the petitioner Development Officer. Hence on this ground alone the order of recovery is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. However, if the petitioner is subject to any loss after the withdrawl of the agent on account of any conduct of the LIC, petitioner may make the representation to the competent authority and the representation of the petitioner shall be considered to redress the grievance of the petitioner as per rules and policy of the LIC within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is further provided that the withdrawl of the agent shall not come in way in redressing the grievance of the petitioner.
With aforesaid observation the writ petition is finally disposed of.