SRIKRISHNA NARAIN AWASTHI Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICER KANPUR 1 AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Development Officer on probation by the Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Kanpur, with effect from 9th Sept., 1965. The terms of the appointment, a copy of which is at Annexure 2 to the petition, provided that the appointment on probation was till 8th Sept., 1966 or till such time as the further extensions are granted and that the appointment was terminable at any time without previous notice. The petitioner was also required to secure during the period of probation a minimum completed life insurance business fetching a premium income of not less than Rs. 22,000.00 and General Insurance Business fetching a premium income of Rs. 660.00. The letter of appointment provided that for considering the question of confirmation the Corporation would not only take into account whether the petitioner has been able to fulfil this target but also other factors such as number of new agents recruited and activised, training given by the petitioner to them, the quality of business etc. The petitioner did complete the stipulated business by the 8th Nov., 1966 but he was told by Annexure 3 to the petition that his work would be assessed for the purpose of confirmation but later he was informed by Annexure 4 to the petition that his probationary period was extended upto 8th March. 1957 and the period of probation was further extended again by Annexure 5 to the petition till 8th Sept., 1967 and the petitioner was asked to complete the business income of Rs. 23.790.00 for the period 9th Sept., 1966 to 8th Sept., 1967. At the end of this period the services of the petitioner were terminated by the order at Annexure 6 to the petition. The petitioner has sought by this petition that the two letters at Annexures 4 and 5 extending the period of probation of the petitioner and the order at Annexure 6 terminating the services of the petitioner be quashed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Instruction 55 in the volume entitled Manual for Divisional Officer which provides the procedure for confirmation. This Manual has no statutory force and is a compilation of instructions of a nature which cannot be enforced in a court of law. Apart from that the said Instruction 55 states that before putting up the papers for confirmation of the officer, certain other information regarding tours, results of the tours, maintenance of record, work habits, attitute of work, post-sales service and the option of the Branch Manager as to the suitability of the probationer as a Sales Supervisor have to be supplied. It is only after considering this information as well as the performance of the probationer within a period of fourteen months, that the question of his confirmation has to be decided. It appears that the authority concerned did not consider the petitioner fit to be confirmed and he was given two extensions of the probation period and thereafter his services were terminated, obviously as he did not find the petitioner suitable for retention in services. The extension of the period of probation of the service of the petitioner is in accordance with the contract of service and the termination of the service would also be justified by Regulation 14 (3) of the Corporation's (Staff) Regulations. 1960. made under Sec. 49 (2) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act. 1956. In the circumstances the petitioner has no case on merits.

(3.) Apart from that, on the analogy of the decision in Executive Committee of the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Vs. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, A.I.R. 1970 SC 1244 . which related to the dismissal of an employee of the Warehousing Corporation without complying with a regulation made under the Agriculture Produce (Development and Warehousing) Corporations Act, 1956, any action taken by the Life Insurance Corporation in disregard of the Corporation's (Staff) Regulations would not be justiciable in a court, of law. The only remedy for the dismissed employee would be by way of a suit for damages for wrongful dismissal. Reference may in this connection be made also to the decision of this Court in Ram Babu Rathaur Vs. Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corpn. of India, AIR 1961 Allahabad 502 which was approved by the Supreme Court in S. R. Tewari Vs. District Board. Agra. A.I.R. 1964 SC 1680 with the following observations:-