Manoj Luthra and Others vs New India Assurance Company Limited and Others

K. Kannan, J.—These two writ petitions address the grievance of 5 Development Officers, who were working in New India Assurance Company Ltd. The Development Officers working in the field had been offered a field allowance, which was called as a "non-core benefit", which was an extra benefit that was meant to defray the actual expenses incurred for doing the duties in the field and also some incentives for canvassing business for the Insurance Company. A Scheme had been introduced in the year 2003, called as the General Insurance (Rationalization of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) Amendment Scheme, 2003, which offered to these Development Officers an option to work at the Head Offices. The persons that exercised such option to work at Head Offices were to forfeit the non-core benefits. This Scheme appears to have been under challenge in various Courts and the matter was decided ultimately by the Hon''ble Supreme Court when the Scheme was upheld. The challenge to scheme contained, inter alia, the provision for forfeiture of the non-core benefits. When the Scheme was upheld, the Insurance Company began effecting recoveries of the non-core benefits already given to the Development Officers. This exercise inflicted upon the petitioners a recovery of large sums, which is the subject of challenge before the Court.

The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that they had themselves not challenged the Scheme. Although they had exercised their option in the year 2003 itself to work in the Head Offices, they were not taken back and assigned duties as Development Officers (Administration) but they continued in the fields and they had, therefore, been paid the noncore benefits. The decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court upholding the Scheme will have a bearing and will enable the Insurance Company to effect recoveries only to such persons who by exercising their options had been serving only as Development Officers (Administration) at the Head Offices and still they were obtaining their non-core benefits. By operation of the stay of the Scheme, the recovery shall not avail to the Insurance Company, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, against persons such as the petitioners, who continued to work in the fields in spite of exercise of option to work as Development Officer (Administration) and the non-core benefits, which they had actually obtained were the quid pro quo for the services rendered in the fields. The order of recovery refers to the fact that when the Scheme was upheld, the persons, who could not be deployed till 11.04.2008 due to filing of several writs, would still loss the benefit and wherever non-core benefits had been allowed, they were to be recovered. This order of recovery fails to make a distinction, which it ought to have, if fair-play were to visit their actions on only such persons, who had obtained the non-core benefits and had remained at the Head Offices. It cannot be applied to persons, although they had exercised their options, when they were not deployed at the Head Offices.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents states that the persons, who were employed in the Head Offices were entitled to certain increments and the Development Officers, who were in field would obtain some incentives if they canvassed maximum business and would also suffer increments if the targets were not achieved or if the performance fell below the benchmark. According to him, the persons, who had claimed the non-core benefits cannot also obtain the increments extended to persons working at the Head Offices. I do not propose to examine the hypothetical situation of persons, who by exercising their options were treated as Development Officers (Administration) and drew their increments and also claimed the non-core benefits by virtue of the fact that the Scheme had been stayed by writ petitions in various Courts. I am only examining a situation of the complaint of the petitioners, who were admittedly not assigned the duties of Development Officers (Administration) in spite of their exercising option in the year 2003. The order issued on 11.04.2008 to the petitioners itself states that they were being relieved from the development assignment only w.e.f. 11.04.2008 and the posting as Development Officers (Administration) would be informed in due course, which means that actual posting at the Head Offices as Development Officers (Administration) had not taken effect till that date and they had only continued in the development assignment and they had, therefore, a legitimate right to obtain the non-core benefits could not have been denied by the order of recovery made on 25.03.2009. The recovery notice dated 25.03.2009 is, therefore, quashed as far as the petitioners alone are concerned. The amounts, which were recovered pursuant to the recovery notice shall forthwith be paid to the petitioners, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

The writ petitions are allowed in the above terms. The impugned orders are quashed. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. Copy of this order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.