MUKUL CHANDRA BAISHYA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking a direction upon the respondents to promote him to the post of Development Officer Grade-I from Development Officer Grade-II with retrospective effect i.e. from the date when the petitioner collected the premium of more than Rs.7.50 lakh in the period of time as extended vide letter dated 01.06.2001 (Annexure-D to the writ petition). The petitioner has also assailed Annexure-C and E i.e. office order/ memorandum dated 16.03.2000 and 21.01.2004 respectively.

(3.) In brief, the case projected by the petitioner is that by letter dated 23.12.1999, he was appointed as the Development Officer, Grade-II (DO-II) on probation and was attached to Mangaldoi Branch under Guwahati Divisional Office-I. The period of probation was one year and liable to be extended for a further period. His service as a DO-II was extended for a period of one year w.e.f. 24.12.2000 by an order dated 01.06.2001. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner as DO-II was confirmed by a letter dated 08.04.2002 w.e.f. 24.12.2001. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the initial appointment letter dated 23.12.1999, the petitioner was required to procure a minimum premium income of Rs.7.50 lakh during the probationary period. It is submitted that while extending his service by letter dated 01.06.2001, it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner was required to procure a minimum premium of Rs.7.50 lakh and that all other terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment letter dated 23.12.1999 would remain same. Accordingly, assailing the letter dated 16.03.2000, it is submitted that the enhancement of the target to Rs.8.00 lakh was a change in the terms of employment. It is further submitted that by the said impugned letter dated 16.03.2000, the target set for Rs.10.25 lakh for placement in Grade-I is also discriminatory and contrary to the terms of appointment dated 23.12.1999. It is submitted that notwithstanding the extension of service of the petitioner on probation, the date of his appointment would be referable to 24.12.1999, the date on which the petitioner joined the service as the DO-II on probation where the prescribed target of collecting minimum premium was only Rs.7.50 lakh.