CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4571 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4571 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: MAY 27, 2011 Rajesh Parashar ..Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India. Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 to 5. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.4571, 18636, 9081, 14907 of 2009, 4621, 5106, 23146, 7413 of 2010. Facts have been taken from CWP No.4571 of 2009. The petitioner was appointed as Inspector Grade-I in the respondent-Insurance Company, which post was re-designated as Development Officer Grade-I. Conditions of service of Development Officers are governed by the Scheme framed under Section 17A of the General Insurance (Business Rationalization) Act, 1972. The principal scheme, which was introduced earlier, was amended on 2.1.2003. The amended scheme was put to challenge -1- CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4571 of 2009 on the ground that the same was unilaterally amended, which was detrimental to the interest of the Development Officers. Various writ petitions were filed challenging the amended scheme. Status quo order was passed. In view of pendency of large number of writ petitions before various Courts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court transferred all these petitions before itself and has disposed of all these writ petitions through a common judgment. The policy formulated by the Insurance Company on 2.1.2003 has been upheld. Copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P-1. The said judgment has also been reported now as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus General Insurance Development Officers Association., 2008 (3) SCT 403. While parting with the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that there was no need for any consultation with the employees, when the changes introduced by the scheme are considered in the background of the position in law. Observation is made that it would be in the interests of officers and Insurance Companies if the Development Officers who work within the cost ratio are not transferred unless the transfer is required to be done in public interest. So far as the promotional prospects and the wage revision are concerned, a draft policy stated to have been formulated for wage revision was directed to be finalized within a period of three months. On the basis of these last noted observations, the Insurance Company has now formulated another scheme in the year -2- CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4571 of 2009 2008. Obviously, this scheme was to take into account the promotional aspect and the wage revision, which was apparently placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a draft form. The petitioner, in the present case, accordingly has come to challenge some of the recovery notices, which have been issued consequent to the scheme formulated in the year 2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made number of submissions. He would first submit that interim order staying the policy formulated in the year 2003, would mean that the same was not in operation for period from 2003 to 2008 and so recoveries cannot be effected. This, of course, is answered by the respondents in a manner that policy of 2003 once upheld has to be given effect too and interim order passed, if any, would merge with the final order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Counsel for the respondents contends that there is no change introduced in the policy formulated in the year 2008, so far as the cost ratio is concerned. It is further pointed out that the cost ratio was not first time introduced in the year 2003, but is an old Policy introduced since 1976 and is being continued. Only the definition of certain term was introduced in 2003 Policy, which led to certain consequences. Once the challenge to 2003 Policy has been upheld, the policy obviously can be given effect. If the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted, it may lead to interference in the policy, which has already been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. If 2008 Policy is having effect on 2003 Policy framed earlier to the detriment of the petitioner and which according to him, would be unfair and unreasonable, the petitioner -3- CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4571 of 2009 would have to seek clarification from the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It would not be appropriate to interfere in the policy, which has already been upheld. So far as the proposed action of the recovery against the petitioner is concerned, this is only on the basis of 2003 Policy and nothing more. Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with a prayer to seek clarification by filing appropriate petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. For this, the petitioners would not need any liberty from this Court. The petitioners are left to take action in accordance with law. The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. May 27, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE -4-