PARAMJEET NAGPAL Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition challenges the decision of the Life Insurance Corporation rejecting the plea of the petitioner for commission earned in the business that he had canvassed and the commission payable for the premium paid by the policy holders subsequent to his voluntary resignation. In an earlier round of litigation, the writ petition in C.W.P. No. 17150 of 2007 had been originally dismissed but the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed this Court to decide the case on merits. In C.W.P. No. 17150 of 2007, this Court had directed by its order dated 05.12.2008 that the Corporation will take a decision under Rule 19 on the petitioner's entitlement to the commission on voluntary resignation.

(2.) The Corporation, while dismissing the petitioner's claim passed a cryptic order on 07.03.2009 and the operative portion inso far as it dealt with rejection of the petitioner's claim comes through these words:-

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the High Court has directed the Corporation to take a decision as per Rule 19 of the Life Insurance Regulations but the Authority have taken a decision under Section 41 (1) (c) of the Insurance Act. The attempt of the petitioner would be, therefore, to say that the Regulations framed under the LIC Act and the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938 operate on mutually exclusive fields and the disentitlement that might arise under Section 44(1) (c) cannot govern the rights of the petitioner when it has to be considered only under Rule 19 of the Regulations.