IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 14348 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- B.R.NAIR, ASSISTANT BRANCH MANAGER, (SALES), S.R.NO.536768, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, CITY BRANCH OFFICE NO.IV, OVER BRIDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE JACOB (JOSE) SMT. MEREENA JOSEPH JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATIONN OF INDIA 'YOGAKSHEMA', JEEVAN BHIMA MARG., MUMBAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL), LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA 'YOGAKSHEMA', JEEVAN BHIMA MARG., MUMBAI. 3. THE SECRETARY (PERSONAL ADMINISTRATION) PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL OFFICE, 'YOGAKSHEMA', JEEVAN BHIMA MARG., MUMBAI-21. 4. K.SWAMINATHAN, SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, LIC OF INDIA, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.14348/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 19/5/2009 PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL WEB-SITE. P2 : COPIES OF RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE CONVEYANCE SCHEME NO.6 DATED 07/10/2008. P3 : COPY OF 2 E-MAILS DATED 29/03/2007 AND 02/06/2007. P4 : COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 18/10/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P5 : COPY OF E-MAIL DATED 26/12/2008 ENCLOSING EARLIER E-MAIL DATED 15/09/2008. P6 : COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 02/06/2009 OF THE PETITIONER. P7 : COPY OF APPEAL DATED 09/07/2009 TO THE ZONAL OFFICER. P8 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 16/09/2009 OF THE ZONAL MANAGER TO R4. P9 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION FROM THE CENTRAL OFFICE TO THE ZONAL MANAGER. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.14348 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Class I Officer working under the 1st respondent, the Life Insurance Corporation, in the post of Assistant Branch Manager (Sales), a post available in the Marketing Wing. By Ext.P1 order dated 19/05/2009, he was posted as Assistant Administrative Officer in the Administrative Wing on de-rotation. It is this order, which is under challenge. 2. The petitioner contends that Ext.P9 is the circular issued by the respondents, governing job rotation of Officers of the Corporation. According to the petitioner, though he commenced service on 01/10/1984 as a Development Officer, since his promotion as Assistant Branch Manager (Sales) on 02/11/1998, he has been working in the Marketing Wing of the Corporation. It is contended that he has now been de-rotated from the Marketing Wing to Administrative Wing. According to the petitioner, he was overlooked in the matter of promotion in 2006 & 2007, and that his WP(C) No.14348/2009 -2- writ petition complaining of such supersession is pending before this Court. It is stated that it is on account of the above, for malafide reasons and to harass the petitioner, he has now been shifted to Administrative Wing. It is also his complaint that as a result of this shifting, he will be losing many of the perquisites he is enjoying. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they assert for the position that the petitioner being a Class-I Officer of the Corporation, it is up to the 1st respondent to decide on what best manner the services of the employee is to be made use for the purpose of the Organisation. According to the respondents, in term of clause 20 of the Staff Regulations, they are entitled to post any Class I employee in any Department, and that it is in exercise of the power that they have issued Ext.P1. According to the 1st respondent, this essentially is an order transferring the petitioner from one Department to other. 4. Ext.P9 produced by the petitioner is a circular dated 24/11/2006, which shows that employees can be posted on job rotation from one department to other. It also talks about the situation when even before the completion of 5 years period, the Management can review its decision, and recall the employee from WP(C) No.14348/2009 -3- job rotation. Therefore, Ext.P9 provides for rotation and de- rotation. Going by Ext.P1, the reason for shifting the petitioner from Marketing Wing to Administrative Wing is de-rotation. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was rotated at any time, to be de-rotated. If that be so, the basis on which Ext.P1 has been issued is incorrect and the order calls for interference. 5. However, this does not mean that subject to the Regulations framed by the 1st respondent, it is not always entitled to make use of the services of its employees in the manner it deems fit. Therefore, the fact that Ext.P1 has to be interfered with, for the reason that the petitioner has been wrongly shifted on de-rotation, does not mean that this Court is depriving the 1st respondent of the powers it has under the Regulations. For the aforesaid reason, Ext.P1 order to the extent it de- rotates the petitioner from Marketing Wing to the Administrative Wing is set aside. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg