K NABAYANA MAYYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a party-in-person is questioning Rule 9 ( 1) of the Notification dated 18-7-1996 styled as 'life Insurance Corporation of India class I Officers' (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Rules, 1996', vide Annexure-A. The petitioner is also questioning instruction 11 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Class I Officers' (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 1996', vide Annexure-B, insofar as it relates to the fixation of date as 1-8-1994 for payment of gratuity as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of india. The petitioner is also seeking for a direction to recalculate the gratuity payable to the petitioner on the basis of such rules and pay as per 1996 pay scale rules.

(2.) THE petitioner entered the service of the Life Insurance Corporation of India as an Assistant on 23-5-1958. He became an officer on 29-10-1966 in the cadre of Assistant Administrative Officer and thereafter he was designated as Administrative Officer in the year 1976. A promotion was given to the petitioner in the year 1984 as Assistant divisional Manager. A subsequent promotion was given as a Divisional manager in the year 1991. The petitioner retired from service on 30-6-1994. The petitioner states that the revision of pay was done by the Life insurance Corporation during the year 1985, making it effective from the year 1983. Pay scales were revised during 1989 and the same was made effective from the year 1987. In both these revisions, for the purpose of increasing the pay and payment of gratuity, same day has been taken into account uniformly, without fixing a different date for revision of pay and gratuity. In the year 1996, revision of pay was done as per the rules called 'life Insurance Corporation of India Class I Officers' (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Rules, 1996, annexure-A. Annexure-B was issued providing for application and eligibility by way of instructions. In terms of 1996 Rules as well as 1996 instructions, no arrears of pay is payable for the period from 1-8-1992 to 31-3-1993 to the officers. The petitioner states that the 2nd respondent has acted in an arbitrary manner by not extending the benefit of gratuity with effect from 1-8-1992 and instead of a grant from 1-8-1994. According to him, Clause 11 provides for no increase for those who retire prior to 1-8-1994 is arbitrary and illegal.

(3.) NOTICE was issued and the respondents have entered appearance. They justify their action. They say that under Section 48 (2) (cc) of the lic Act, the Central Government is empowered to issue rules providing for the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the Corporation. While determining the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the Corporation, the Central Government keeps in view the terms and conditions of service applicable to the employees of other public Sector Financial Institutions especially in the Banking Industry. Before the impugned notification dated 18-7-1996, was issued by the central Government, elaborate discussions were held between the Corporation and the Federation of the LIC of India Class I Officers' Association. It was only thereafter the present notification was issued. They say that the grant of gratuity from 1-8-1994 has the concurrence of the federation of the Class I Officers' and it is based on the banking sector, they want the petition to be dismissed.