SONIA BHASKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Development Officer working under the second respondent- corporation, who is under threat of termination on the ground that her annual remuneration exceeded 38% of the eligible premium during the appraisal year ended on 29.2.2012 and that her "cost ratio" on the basis of the annual remuneration for the immediately preceding appraisal year which ended on 29.2.2011 was 45.20%, has come up with this writ petition for getting Ext.P8 and all further steps taken by respondents 2 and 3 to terminate the petitioner's service quashed. There is yet another prayer for getting sub-rule (8) of Rule 6 and sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 quashed on the ground that the same would detrimentally affect the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner, who is a Graduate in Chemical Engineering, joined the second respondent corporation on 9.2.2009 as Development Officer and on completion of her probation, she got confirmation on 9.2.2010. According to the petitioner, at the time of joining service, the Rules relating to the terms and conditions of service of the Development Officers under the second respondent was 1989 Rules (Ext.P1). This was later repealed and re-enacted by 2009 Rules (Ext.P2), which came into force with effect from 12.11.2009.

(3.) The petitioner received Ext.P3 notice issued by the second respondent asking her to show cause why her service should not be terminated on the ground that her annual remuneration exceeded 38% of the eligible premium of the appraisal year ended on 29.2.2012 and that her cost ratio for the immediately preceding appraisal year was 45.20%. She sent Ext.P4 letter dated 27.2.2012 informing the Senior Divisional Manager that she was on leave during the relevant period on medical grounds due to pregnancy. The petitioner also filed Ext.P5 reply stating that she was on long leave undergoing treatment from 8.10.2010, and that she was granted maternity leave from 16.8.2011 to 11.2.2012 and, therefore, she could not discharge more work for bringing more premium by mobilising and encouraging agents. She also assured to work hard during the rest of tenure and requested to waive the cost ratio norms for the period from 8.8.2011 to 27.2.2012.