Case: Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. K.R. Krishnamurthi

1. The respondent is an employee of the appellant, the Life Insurance Corporation of India, being an Assistant in its Bangalore Divisional Office2. The appellant was going to hold certain examinations from March 18, 1961, for promotion of some of its employees to higher grades in its organization. The respondent claimed to be entitled to appear in some of these examinations but was not allowed to do so by the appellant on the ground that he was not eligible under the rules framed for the purpose of deciding who shall appear at the examinations. The respondent thereupon moved the High Court of Mysore on March 14, 1961, under article 226 of the Constitution for a writ to stop the examinations for promotion to two of the higher posts, namely, the higher grade assistants and superintendents posts or, in the alternative, for a writ of mandamus directing the appellant to hold a special examination for him for promotion to the higher grade assistants and superintendents cadres and not to publish the results of the examinations to be held from March 18, 1961, except along with the result of that special examination. The petition was decided by a judgment dated December 7, 1961, and was allowed. By that time however the examinations had all been concluded and presumably their results declared. The High Court, therefore, only directed the appellant to permit the respondent to sit for the examinations for promotion to the cadres of superintendents and higher grade assistants as and when they were held. Hence the present appeal

Court's reasoning:
7. It appears that the respondent first joined the Mysore Government of February 22, 1950. He was then employed in the food section as a purchase depot clerk at Malur. From November 16, 1953, he was appointed as a third division clerk in the taluka office at Malur. It was only on January 2, 1956, that the respondent joined the insurance department of the Mysore Government. From September 1, 1956, he has been in the employment of the appellant Corporation under section 11(1) of the Act. It is not in dispute that there was no break in his service of more than six months since he first joined the Mysore Government service on February 22,seems to us that the appellants reading of the note is the correct one. The Act and the Regulations, and the orders are concerned with the previous insurer and its employees only so far as the life insurance business of that insurer is concerned. With the other activities of the insurer or his other employees the Act has nothing to do. It may be pointed out that under section 11 of the Act only those employees of the insurer who are employed " wholly or mainly in connection with his controlled business immediately before the appointed day", that automatically pass into the service of the Corporation. No doubt, section 11 deals with persons employed immediately before the appointed day and is concerned with the transfer of the services of these people to the Corporation, but it certainly indicates what kind of employees of the previous insurer is contemplated by the Act. That kind consists of persons who had been wholly and mainly employed in the life insurance business of the insurer. With other employees of the insurer the Act is not concerned. When, therefore, orders are issued under powers conferred by the Act concerning the services of employees of previous insurers and the words "service with the previous insurer" are used, it is plain that they can only refer to service in the insurance business of the previousregulation provides that " service of an employee shall be deemed to commence from the working day on which an employee reports for duty." There is an explanation to this regulation and that reads, " In the case of a transferred employee, his service shall be deemed to have commenced from the date on which his service commenced with thedo not think that the explanation shows that. In our view, it raises the same question which has arisen in the present case and is of no assistance in answering that questionThe High Court thought that as under sub-section (1) of section 11 an employee whose services were transferred was entitled to the same rights and privileges in all matters relating to his service as prevailed before his services were transferred and the respondent was entitled under the Mysore Government Service Regulations to contend that his service had commenced on February 22, 1950, that right cannot be taken away by Administrative Orders or Regulations. The learned judge of the High Court, however, did not consider sub-section (2) of section 11 which gives the Central Government the power to alter the conditions of service notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1). It is under that power that paragraphs 6 and 8 of the administrative orders and the notes appended to them had been made. However, as we have said earlier, no question as to the validity of any of these orders and regulations was raised on behalf of the respondent at the hearing before us. In fact the respondent has proceeded on the basis of these orders and regulations and claimed to be entitled to certain rights under them. We also, therefore, decide the appeal on that basis