AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)
In the present bunch of petitions, challenge is to the Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) as well as the amendment done to the said rules in the year 2016, to contend that without there being any nexus with the objective sought to be achieved, the ratio of the remuneration of the Development Officer is being decided and keeping in view the decline in the insurance policies being issued, the services of such Development Officers are being terminated. Hence, such rule which gives unlimited power to the LIC, is incorrect and such rule is liable to be set aside.
Further challenge is to the termination orders dated 10.03.2017 which have been passed by issuing a show cause notice dated 19.01.2017 to take action against the petitioners.
It is a conceded fact that in case the rules which have been impugned remains operative, LIC has the power not only to disincentivise the officer concerned but also can terminate the services of the such Development Officer on the ground of lower income being generated by such Development Officer. The question is whether the rules giving such power to the LIC are ultra vires or not.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the LIC submits that the said adjudication qua the validity of the 2009 rules in question as amended from time to time have already been decided more than once and the latest judgment has been passed by High Court of Allahabad in Hitesh Kumar Goyal v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others decided on 20.12.2024 where by a detailed judgment, the validity of 2009 Rules as amended in 2016, which have also been impugned in the present bunch of petitions, have already been upheld.
Learned counsel for the LIC further submits that once the validity of such challenged rules have been upheld by a competent Court of law, consequent upon issuance of the show cause notices and termination of the services, the writ petitions challenging such rules are liable to be dismissed in terms of the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Hitesh Kumar Goyal’s case (supra).
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that though the validity of the rules challenged has already been upheld by Allahabad High Court in Hitesh Kumar Goyal’s case (supra) but the said judgment is pending for consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No.36731-2025, hence, no action can be taken in view of the said judgment.
On being asked whether operation of the said judgment has been stayed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that only notice has been issued but the operation of the judgment has not been stayed.
We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
In the present bunch of petitions, challenge to the validity of the 2009 rules as raised before Allahabad High Court wherein operation of such rules have already been upheld. Keeping in view the judicial proprietary, once a competent Court of law by giving due reasons has upheld validity of a particular rule, the same needs to be followed unless and until such judgment is shown to be perverse to any settled principles of law. In the present case, no such argument has been raised qua the validity of the judgment of Hitesh Kumar Goyal’s case (supra) passed by Allahabad High Court upholding the rules, except that the judgment is pending consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
The law on the said issue is clear that where a competent Court of law has passed an order and operation of the same has not been stayed, merely an appeal has been preferred against the same, the said judgment cannot be ignored and has to be followed. Support can be taken from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 SCC Online SC 1140 wherein following has been held : -
“35.We are seeing before us judgments and orders by High Courts not deciding cases on the ground that the leading judgment of this Court on this subject is either referred to a larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto is pending. We have also come across examples of High Courts refusing deference to judgments of this Court on the score that a later Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness. In this regard, we lay down the position in law. We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands. It is not open, unless specifically directed by this Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition, as the case may be. It is also not open to a High Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has been doubted by a later Coordinate Bench. In any case, when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts, as held by a 5-Judge Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 6805. The High Courts, of course, will do so with careful regard to the facts and circumstances of the case before it.”
In the present case also, once the rules of 2009 as amended in 2016 have already been upheld by Allahabad High Court by giving due reasons, this Court cannot negate the same and negativate the challenge raised to such rule in terms of the judgment passed by Allahabad High Court in Hitesh Kumar Goyal’s case (supra).
However, in order to avoid multiplicity of the litigation, learned counsel for the LIC has agreed before this Court that in case the judgment in Hitesh Kumar Goyal’s case (supra) is either set aside or modified giving any right to the petitioners herein to claim any benefit by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which decided in SLP-36731-2025, the same will be extended to the petitioner as well even if no appeal is preferred against this order by the petitioners before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Even otherwise, once a particular order is passed in terms of any settled principles of law and such settled principles of law undergoes a challenge or modification in any manner by the Appellate Court, the order passed by the Appellate Court is to be made applicable to all similarly situated candidates. Hence in case any order modifying the judgment in Hitesh Kumar Goyal’s case (supra) is passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the same will be made applicable upon the petitioners also and if such modification gives any right to the petitioners to claim any benefit including revivial of the present writ petition, such would be extended.
Hence, the present petitions are dismissed in terms of the judgment in Hitesh Kumar Goyal’s case (supra) subject to any order to be passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India SLP No.36731-2025 which is pending for consideration.
Consequently, the orders terminating the services of the writ petitioners are also upheld.
In case, no order of termination is passed and only show cause notice has been issued, LIC will have competence to pass such order as admissible against them subject to outcome of SLP No.36731-2025 which is pending for consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that keeping in view the interim order granted, the petitioners were continuing on such post but the salary as admissible to them has not been paid. It is further submitted that they were not being paid salary as being made admissible to other Development Officers who were in LIC or even in the same office where the petitioners are working and the benefit of the revision of pay has not been extended to the petitioners which is incorrect, as till the petitioners remained in service even under the orders of the Court, they are entitled to be paid salary as being paid to the Development Officer working in the LIC office without any discrimination.
Learned counsel for the LIC submits that the benefit of revision of pay has not been made applicable upon the employees who are continuing under the orders of the Court, keeping in view the instructions dated 07.05.2024 issued by LIC.
Qua the said issue, Court is of the view that merely a person who is working under the order of the Court, does not mean that such person is to be discriminated for the grant of salary. Salary is to be paid keeping in view the terms and conditions of the employment qua the post held and the cadre in which such person is working.
It is to be noted that once in terms of the orders passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court interim order is granted whereby the petitioners are still working, they are entitled for the salary and pay revision as admissible to other Development Officers on such post. Merely that the petitioners were working under the orders of the Court cannot take away their rights even to claim for the revised salary. Hence for all intents and purposes, till the petitioners worked under the orders of the Court, they are to be considered on the same pedestal as other Development Officers who were working with the LIC and no discrimination can be allowed on such basis qua any benefit admissible.
Hence in case the petitioners have not been paid salary in terms of the findings recorded hereinbefore, they will move an appropriate application for the grant of actual salary/pay revision which they are entitled for and such benefits will be given keeping in view the findings recorded hereinbefore within a period of 2 months of the receipt of any such representation.
In case, such benefit is not released, within a period of 2 months of the representation filed claiming such benefits, said amount, if released, after 2 months will also carry interest @ 6% per annum.
The present bunch of petitions are decided in terms of the order dictated hereinbefore.
It may be noticed that the order was dictated in open Court in the presence of the counsel for the parties.
No other argument was raised before this Court.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected cases.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.