TEK CHAND MITAL Vs. THE ZONAL MANAGER IN-CHARGE OF NORTHERN ZONAL OFFICE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 15th November, 1954, Tek Chand, Petitioner, was employed as an Inspector at Delhi by the United India Life Assurance Company, Limited. On 12th May, 1955, he was confirmed as an Organising Secretary in the said Company with effect from 1st April, 1955, on a fixed basic salary of Rs. 400 plus Rs. 365 as allowances per month. On 15th June, 1956 his remuneration was fixed at Rs. 400 as basic salary and Rs. 265 as allowances per month with effect from 1st April, 1956. The entire life insurance business carried on in India by numerous Insurance Companies was nationalised and taken over by the Central Government under the provisions of the Life Insurance Ordinance No. 1 of 1956, with effect from 19th January, 1956. Subsequently, this Ordinance was replaced by the Life Insurance Corporation Act 31 of 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), according to which the Life Insurance Corporation of India was set up and it took over the entire life insurance business with effect from 1st September, 1956. On 6th September, 1956, the Petitioner received a letter from the Divisional Manager, Delhi Division Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Respondent No. 2, intimating that he had been posted in the Branch Office of the Life Insurance Corporation at Connaught Circus, New Delhi. On 2nd December, 1957, the Managing Director of the Life Insurance Corporation issued two circulars entitled (1) Categorisation or fitting in of existing salaried field workers; (Revised), (Annexure 'E') and (2) Terms and conditions of service of salaried field workers (Revised) (Annexure 'F'). On 30th December, 1957, the Central Government acting under Section 11(2) of the Act passed an order called the Life Insurance Corporation Field Officers (Alteration of Remuneration and Other Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1957 (Annexure 'G'), providing for the terms and conditions of service of the Field Officers of the Corporation. On 10th January, 1958, the Branch Manager, wrote to the Petitioner that under para 11 of the Order (Annexure 'G'), the Corporation was to lay down regulations with regard to the determination of actual pay and allowances of all the Field Officers and the circulars (Annexures 'E' and 'F') dated 2nd December, 1957, be treated as such regulations. On 29th April, 1958, the Divisional Manager, intimated the Petitioner that in accordance with para 4(f) of Annexure 'E' his work had been reviewed and in consequence thereof his remuneration had been fixed on ad hoc basis at Rs. 310 as basic salary and Rs. 275 as allowance per mensem (Annexure 'I'). By means of a letter dated 22nd May, 1958, the Managing Director informed the Petitioner that a Special Committee had been appointed under Clause 5 of annexure 'E' to examine and review the cases of the Ex -Branch Secretaries and Ex -Supervisory Officers, who were required to work as Field Officers. On 5th November, 1958, however, the Senior Divisional Manager, wrote to the Petitioner that his case did not fall within the purview of the said Committee and as such he should continue to work as a Field Officer. Later on 27th November, 1958, the Zonal Manager, Respondent No. 1, informed the Petitioner that his performance during the categorisation period being less than 50 per cent, his case was referred to the Zonal Committee, under para 4(h) of Annexure 'E'. The Zonal Committee had gone through his case and in their opinion he was not fit to be absorbed in the Administration side and his appointment, therefore, was terminated with effect from 1st December, 1958 (Annexure 'L'). The present writ petition was filed on 3rd April, 1959, and the relevant claim made therein is as follows:

(2.) THIS writ petition came up for hearing before Grover, J., who by his order dated 19th October, 1959, referred it to a Division Bench in view of the fact that important law points were involved therein and that is how this case has come up before us.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondents raised a number of preliminary objections: