THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No.18134 of 1994 Dated:25-01-2007 Between:- 1. J.V. Bhanu Murthy (died) per L.Rs., 2. J. Bhramaramba 3. J. Varun Kumar ..Petitioners And The Chiarman-cum-Managing Director, United India Insurance Co., Ltd., 24, Whites Road, Madras and three others. ..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No. 18134 of 1994 :O R A L O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for records relating to the proceedings in HO MKTG 93-94 dated 30-11-1993 on the ﬁle of the ﬁrst respondent and to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner was appointed as Grade-I Inspector in the United Indian Insurance Company Limited at Sringavarapukota. His probation in the said category was also declared in the year 1982. However, since he was not able to get the cost ratio business for the Company, he was warned several times periodically and his increments were not granted during the years 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 as per clause 11 (4) of the Developmental Staﬀ Scheme. Further increments were also aﬀected in 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991. In fact, the basic pay of the petitioner was ﬁxed in the minimum of Development Oﬃcer Grade-II, but there was no improvement in the business. Therefore, by the oﬃce order dated 07-07-1993, the services of the petitioner were terminated. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal. The appellate authority, after detailed consideration of the same, conﬁrmed the orders passed by the original authority. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, in view of the fact that he was not able to get business as targeted by the Corporation, since the area in which he is appointed is a Tribal area, he made a request for reducing him to a lower rank of Assistant or Record Clerk. Instead of considering that, the respondents have terminated the services of the petitioner. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for the respondents stated that the petitioner’s performance was not good and he was warned periodically and his increments were stopped and also his pay was reduced to the minimum scale, but even then he did not improve the situation. Therefore, the extreme step of termination of services was taken. The same was considered by the appellate authority in right perspective. No illegality has been committed by the respondents calling for interference in the impugned order. It is brought to the notice of this court that the ﬁrst petitioner died on 02-05-2004 and his legal representatives were brought on record. Heard both sides. It is a fact that the petitioner was appointed as Inspector Grade-I (Developmental Oﬃcer) in the year 1980 and his probation was declared in 1982. But it is also a fact that several times the petitioner was warned to improve the business, but he did not do so. Therefore, his increments were stopped for several times and ultimately his basic pay was reduced. The contention of the petitioner that he should have been reduced to a rank of Assistant or a Record Clerk would not arise for the reason that the department has given several opportunities to him to improve his performance, which he did not do so. On the other hand, though the petitioner says that it is an agency area, he could not get the business, but the reasons furnished earlier shows that he is not keeping good health and his wife is working at Vijayanagram and if he is transferred to Vijayanagaram, he may be able to get the business properly. Except this, the socalled request made by the petitioner to reduce him to the rank of Assistant or Record Clerk seems to be never made. Even such a request is made, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it seems that it would appear that the department has given several opportunities to the petitioner to improve his business for over several years. The petitioner did not mend his ways and did not improve the business. The order of termination was passed on 07-07- 1993 which was conﬁrmed in appeal on 30-11-1993 and the writ petition was filed in the year 1994. I am of the opinion that the respondents have not committed any irregularity or illegality calling for interference of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ C.V. RAMULU, J Dated: 25-01-2007. Pvks/*