T.Sivadasan vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India

Anu Sivaraman, J.

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction, directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Branch Manager and Senior Branch Manager, from the dates on which his juniors were promoted to these post and grant to the petitioner all consequential benefits, without any delay forthwith;

ii)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction directing the respondents to fix the petitioner's pay at the appropriate stage in the post of Branch Manager and Senior Branch Manager and pay to the petitioner arrears of pay and allowances granting to him annual increments in these posts, without any delay forthwith;

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction directing the respondents to revise pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner as if the petitioner had retired from service and pay to the petitioner arrears of pension and consequential other retirement benefits, without any delay forthwith;

iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction directing the respondents to pay interest on the delay payment of arrears of salary and allowances and on the arrears of pension and retirement benefits @ 12% per annum thereon from the date the benefits were due till the date of actual payment;

v) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction directing the respondents to pay to the Grant to the petitioner Rs.2,90,000/- being the cash incentive due to him for award of ACE Marketing Officers Competition Award to Kunnamkulam Branch of LIC during 2007-2008, without any delay forthwith;

vi) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner Rs.50,637.00/- being the amount wrongly recovered from his salary without any delay forthwith.”

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, Corporation.

It is submitted that the petitioner retired from service as Assistant Branch Manager (Sales) on 31.05.2020. It is submitted that a charge memo had been issued to the petitioner alleging forgery of signature of an agent of the LIC for canvassing policies in the name of an agent, without his knowledge and forging the agent’s signature in the proposal forms etc. Ext.P1 order imposing the penalty of reduction in basic pay by four stages and recovery of an amount Rs.50,637.18, being the pecuniary benefit derived by the petitioner, had been issued after due enquiry procedure. Thereafter, on conviction in a criminal case charged against the petitioner on the very same allegations, his services were terminated by the LIC by Ext.P2 order dated 12.07.2014.

The petitioner was subsequently acquitted in appeal by this Court and he was reinstated in service. However, the period from the effective date of removal to the date of reinstatement was treated as dies non, which was again challenged by the petitioner and Ext.P9 judgment was rendered holding that the acquittal was honourable and therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to all consequences of the acquittal in the criminal cases, including reinstatement with full salary and allowances. The benefits were directed to be calculated and disbursed to the petitioner.

In the light of the said directions, it is submitted that monetory benefits were released to the petitioner. However, it is contended that the petitioner was entitled to promotion to the post of Branch Manager as also Senior Branch Manager, since several of the petitioner’s juniors had been granted such promotions. It is contended that the said promotions should also carry all consequential benefits, including back wages. It is submitted that in Ext.P11 judgment dated 29.03.2007, a Division Bench of this Court has clearly held that where promotion is denied for reasons not attributable to the employee, the question whether any valid reasons exist for the denial of the emoluments on account of the promotions is to be considered by the competent authority. It is submitted that seeking retrospective promotions and back wages as also claiming the amounts recovered pursuant to Ext.P1, the petitioner approached the respondents with Ext.P12 representation, but no orders had been passed thereon.

A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the respondents 1 to 3 contending that all applicable benefits had been calculated and released to the petitioner. It is contended that the leave encashment, commutation pension, arrears of pension, notional fixation of pay and all cash awards and even the amounts in view of an international tour with spouse had been calculated and disbursed to the petitioner. With regard to the refund of Rs.50637.18 recovered from the salary, it is submitted that there was no challenge to Ext.P1 at any relevant point in time and therefore, since, Ext.P1 has become final, the said benefit cannot be granted. With regard to the claim of the petitioner for back wages, on account of his notional promotions, it is contended that the competent authority in the LIC had opened the sealed cover and granted promotion to the petitioner as Branch Manager with effect from 30.04.2011, that is, the date of office order of promotion of similarly situated employees and had granted notional fixation of pay with effect from the said date. It is contended that since the petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2020 and since the batch of officers promoted as AO/BM in 2011-12 along with petitioner had not been considered for the promotion to the cadre of ADM, SDM, the prayer of petitioner for further promotions is not liable to the considered.

Having considered the contentions advanced, I notice that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P12 representation before the respondents seeking the benefit of back wages consequent on promotion which has been notionally granted to him with effect from 30.04.2011. Petitioner has also raised a claim in Ext.P12 that his juniors have been further promoted and that the said benefit is also liable to be extended to the petitioner. Though the claim raised by the petitioner for return of the amounts deducted by Ext.P1 does not appear to be supported by any valid challenge to the said proceedings at any time proximate to the issuance of the same, I am of the opinion that the other claims raised by the petitioner require a consideration in the light of the specific finding in Ext.P9 that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits of the honourable acquittal in the criminal case. This is more so in view of the fact that Ext.P11 judgment rendered in the case of an identically situated employee also directs the consideration of the issue of back wages for the notional promotions granted.

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that Ext.P12 representation submitted by the petitioner is liable to be considered and a speaking order passed on the same in accordance with law. There will, accordingly, be a direction to the competent among the respondents to take up Ext.P12 representation preferred by the petitioner and to consider and pass orders on the same, after considering all relevant aspects in the matter within a period of 3 months from date of receipt of the copy of the judgment.

Writ petition is ordered accordingly.