Munesh Kumar Vs Union of India Ministry of Finance & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Munesh Kumar Vs Union of India Ministry of Finance & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the Petitioner to avail of his remedies in respect of his termination, if available, in accordance with the law.

Issue for consideration

Whether Rule 6 (8) and Rule 7 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009, as amended by the 2016 Amendment Rules, are violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the challenge to the impugned Rules is already pending before this Court in other writ petitions, and the Petitioner stood terminated prior to the filing of the writ petition itself, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present writ petition pending.

Ratio / Principle

The present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to avail of his remedies in respect of his termination, if available, in accordance with the law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (W.P.(C) 5833/2025) by a Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation, who joined on 27.11.2017, challenging Rule 6 (8) and Rule 7 of the LIC (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 as amended by the LIC Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Amendments Rules 2016, as violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Petitioner had been served a show cause notice dated 03.02.2025 proposing termination on the basis of appraisals of 58.98% (year ending 31.10.2024) and 51.91%/52.76% for the two preceding years; LIC asserted no reply was filed (disputed by Petitioner's counsel), and the Petitioner's services stood terminated prior to the filing of the petition. Identical challenges to the same Rules were already pending in W.P.(C)12882/2018 and W.P.(C) 13895/2025. The Bench (Prathiba M. Singh, J. and Madhu Jain, J.) held that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending and disposed of it with liberty to the Petitioner to pursue his remedies against the termination, if available, in accordance with law. The Court did not adjudicate the constitutional validity of the impugned Rules.

$~14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(C) 5833/2025 & CM APPL. 26646/2025

MUNESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tilak Raj and Mr. Ajay Talasera, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Dr. B. Ramaswamy, CGSC Mr. Ankur Goel, Adv. for R2 to R4

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

O R D E R

% 17.02.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

This petition has been filed by the Petitioner– Mr. Munesh Kumar, who had joined as a Development Officer with the Life Insurance Corporation on 27th November, 2017.

The background of the case is that a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 3^rd February, 2025 wherein, on the basis of the assessment of the performance and the appraisal in the year ending on 31^st October, 2024 being 58.98 % and the previous two years being 51.91 and 52.76 %, he was sought to be terminated.

The case of the LIC is that he did not file a reply to the show cause notice. This position has been disputed by the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. 5. The petitioner has raised a challenge to Rule 6 (8) and Rule 7 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Revision of Certain Terms and

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/02/2026 at 15:41:59

Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009, amended as Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Amendments Rules 2016. The challenge has been raised on the ground that the said impugned Rules are violative of Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

In the meantime, there are two other writ petitions, being W.P.(C)12882/2018 and W.P.(C) 13895/2025 which are currently pending before this Court, challenging the same very impugned Rules.

It is also stated on behalf of the Petitioner that prior to the listing of this petition, the Petitioner’s services were already terminated. 8. Since the challenge to the impugned Rules is already pending before this Court, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present writ petition pending as the Petitioner stood terminated prior to the filing of the writ petition itself.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to avail of his remedies in respect of his termination, if available, in accordance with the law.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

MADHU JAIN, J.

FEBRUARY 17, 2026 ys/ss

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/02/2026 at 15:41:59