CHITHRA V. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is working as a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation, is aggrieved by Ext.P7 order issued by the Zonal Manager of the respondent Corporation, the 2nd respondent herein, terminating the services of the petitioner as a Development Officer. The facts in the writ petition would indicate that, by a show cause notice dated 08.07.2015, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why her service as a Development Officer should not be terminated on the ground that she had exceeded the prescribed 'cost ratio' for four appraisal years consecutively, and further, on account of imposition of disincentives, her basic pay had also reached below the minimum of the scale applicable to the Development Officer and was fixed at the minimum for the first time in the appraisal year ended May 2014. It was stated in the show cause notice that the fixation of pay scale at the minimum of the scale could be allowed only once during the entire service of the Development Officer, but in the case of the petitioner, she had exceeded the 'cost ratio' in the immediately following appraisal year ended May 2015, and therefore, the basic pay had fallen below the minimum scale for the second time, which was not permissible. The petitioner was, therefore, asked to show cause as to why her services should not be terminated for violation of the aforementioned provisions in the LIC Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service)Rules, 2009(herein after referred to as '2009 Rules'). The petitioner on receipt of the show cause notice, preferred a detailed explanation, wherein, among other things, it was stated that there were valid reasons as to why the expense limit had exceeded the prescribed limit and further, why the 'cost ratio' for the appraisal years in question had exceeded the prescribed limit. It was, in particular, pointed out that, for the period from 16.12.2013 to 28.02.2014 in the appraisal year 2013-14, she was on medical leave and therefore, not in the office and that even for the period from 16.06.2014 to 13.12.2014, in the appraisal year 2014-15, she remained out of work on account of maternity leave, that she had availed. It was therefore pointed out that, in the calculation of the 'cost ratio', the annual remuneration received by her during the period she was on maternity leave and medical leave, ought to have been excluded and the computation of 'cost ratio' done, thereafter, by excluding the remuneration attributable for the said period. The said explanation of the petitioner was not accepted by the Zonal Manager, who, vide Ext.P7 order, proceeded to disallow the claim for exclusion of the period during which the petitioner was on leave, and confirmed the proposal to terminate her services as Development Officer. In the writ petition, as already noted, Ext.P7 order of the Zonal Manager is impugned.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, wherein, Ext.P7 order is sought to be justified on the grounds stated therein. It is further pointed out that the constitutional validity of the '2009 Rules' had been challenged before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 21.08.2015 in W.A.No.8/2015, upheld the validity of the aforesaid Rules. It is also pointed out that, the particular contention with regard to exclusion of the leave period from the computation of annual remuneration, was rejected by the Division Bench, which found that inasmuch as the petitioner had received the remuneration even for the leave period, the said amount could not be excluded while computing the cost ratio, in relation to the petitioner. It is further pointed out that there is no procedural violation occasioned by the respondents while passing Ext.P7 order and therefore, the said order did not merit any intervention at the hands of this Court in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) I have heard the learned senior counsel Sri.N.Dharmadan duly assisted by Smt.Renu D.P., on behalf of the petitioner. I have also heard Sri.S.Eswaran, the learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation.