L.P.A. No.193 of 2008 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.193 of 2008 (O & M) Date of decision: 17.04.2009 LIC of India .....Petitioner versus M.M. Singh .....Respondent Coram:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. N. JINDAL. Present: Ms. Parminder Kwatra, Manger (Legal) LIC of India, Divisional Office, Chandigarh and Mr. Sachinder Sharma, Regional Manager (Legal), LIC of India, Zonal Office, New Delhi. For appellant. Mr. M.M. Singh, respondent, in person. A. N. JINDAL, J The LPA has arisen out of the judgment dated 23.01.2008 passed by Single Judge, accepting the Civil Writ Petition and directing the appellant-respondents to place the respondent- petitioner in the pay scale of higher cadre of Divisional Manager with effect from the date when the juniors to him were given promotion. The respondent (earlier the petitioner) had filed the said writ petition in the year 1985 for quashing the order dated 2.09.1985 (Annexure P-1). He averred that he is to retire on 25.1.1986 after completing 58 years of age. He has challenged the virus of Regulation 19(2) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, and on the grounds that Allahabad High Court has already quashed the same in Civil Misc. Writ No.6849 of 1984 on August 17, 1985. The second plea set up by him is that he is entitled to be promoted to the L.P.A. No.193 of 2008 (O & M) -2- post of Divisional Manager with effect from the date when the officers junior to him were promoted. In reply the appellant (earlier the respondent in Civil Writ Petition) has contended that since the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has affirmed the Regulation. Therefore, the respondent-petitioner cannot come to contend now that the Regulation 19(2) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960 is in anyway ultra vires the constitution. Any way that the appellant has continued his arguments on second point. The factual background of the case is that the respondent-petitioner had joined as whole time agent in the Prudential Insurance Corporation of England in 1950. Appellant- Corporation came to be formed on 1.09.1956, when the respondent- petitioner (herein referred as the respondent) had joined the said Corporation. Thereafter, he was promoted as Inspector (Class II post) on 15.06.1957 and became Assistant Branch Manager (Class- I) in the year 1961. In April, 1980, on the basis of his merit, he was elevated and posted at Meerut Divisional Office in the Central Zone of the Corporation as Assistant Divisional Manager (Development). Then he was transferred to Chandigarh in the year 1982 as Divisional Manager and became overall incharge of about 23 branches of Punjab and Himachal Pradesh. The only claim of the respondent is that he was entitled to be promoted from the date when his juniors were promoted. It was further submitted that there are no statutory Rules and executive instructions to the effect that an officer in the last year of retirement is not to be considered for promotion. The practice is wholly illegal and is on the face of it arbitrary, L.P.A. No.193 of 2008 (O & M) -3- discriminatory and is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The record of service of the respondent-petitioner was outstanding throughout and no complaint or any inquiry was pending against him. He had clean and unblemished record of service to his credit, therefore, he could not be ignored from promotion. The appellant contested his claim and submitted that there was unwritten policy which would deny his promotion during the last year of his service before retirement. The further stand of the appellant is that the respondent was not promoted to the rank of Divisional Manager as he was not found suitable for promotion by Selection Committee keeping in view the requirements of Regulation 7(3), Staff Regulations 1960. It was further averred that the persons junior to him were promoted as they were found fit for promotion in the terms of Regulation 7(3) as noticed above. Replication has also been filed wherein the respondent controverted all the allegations and further submitted that he was ignored from promotion on flimsy grounds. The Single Judge while relying upon a judgment dated 25.04.1990 referred as under:- CWP No.307 of 1986 titled as R. D. Gupta versus Life Insurance Corporation of India and others rendered by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. “At its meeting held on 9.12.1985, the Board decided to change the present practice and considered cases of Officers for promotion even if they are due to retire during the financial year in which promotions are considered. For this purpose post held by the officer will not be upgraded but the officer will L.P.A. No.193 of 2008 (O & M) -4- be placed in the scale of pay in the higher cadre without counting the same for sanctioned strength in the higher cadre. However, vacancy created in the lower cadre from which the officer is given the advantage of scale of pay in the higher cadre will not be filled up till retirement of the concerned officers” On scrutiny of the record, it transpires that though the respondent was to retire on 25.1.1986 and his case for promotion was considered within one year of service. Yet, he cannot be declined promotion merely on the ground that he had less than one year to retire. The aforesaid judgment refers to a resolution passed by the appellant-Corporation. Therefore, the respondent-petitioner was entitled to the extended benefit as per the said resolution. In view of the above discussion this appeal being unmerited is hereby dismissed and the appellant-Corporation is directed to reimburse all the benefits accruing from the post of the Divisional Manager along with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum within three months from today. ( UMA NATH SINGH ) ( A. N. JINDAL ) JUDGE JUDGE 17.04.2009 A.Kaundal