IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.20785 of 2006 Date of decision: April 27, 2009. Gian Chand Verma ...Petitioner(s) v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 8.7.2006 (Annexure P-10) whereby his claim for restoration of the renewal commission has been turned down. The petitioner was an agent of the respondent-Insurance company. His agency was terminated on account of an alleged misconduct. The petitioner's appeal against termination of his agency also failed. Aggrieved, he approached this Court in CWP No.17409 of 2005 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on March 20, 2006 in the following terms:- “Mr. Chadha states that the petitioner gives up his challenge to the termination of the agency, but further states that as the Life Insurance Corporation of India itself has taken a different decision with respect to one H.R. Gupta vide Annexure P-11, whereby his renewal commission was restored, a similar prayer is made in the present petition as well. He accordingly prays that the writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents. Allowed as prayed. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid. We further direct that the decision be taken by the LIC itself within a period of three months from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. In case the petitioner fails before the LIC, he would be at liberty to approach this Court yet again.” The petitioner accordingly represented the respondents for the restoration of his renewal commission but his claim has been turned down on the ground that he has already exhausted the remedy of Memorial before the Superior Authority. As regards the parity claimed by the petitioner with one Hari Ram Gupta, it is claimed that “each and every case is decided on its own merits....”. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that the impugned order cannot sustain in law. If the Senior Divisional Manager who has passed the impugned order, was of the view that the petitioner's appeal and Memorial against termination of his agency had already been dismissed by a Superior Authority, he ought to have referred to the petitioner's claim for restoration of renewal of commission to that superior authority only. Similarly, no distinction, whatsoever, between the petitioner and Hari Ram Gupta's cases, is discernible from the impugned order. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 8.7.2006 (Annexure P-10) is set aside and it is directed that the petitioner's claim for restoration of his renewal commission be placed before the Zonal Manager-cum-appellate authority or before the Chairman of the Corporation as the case may be. The said authority shall take a final decision in the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Dasti. April 27, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge