Dismissed

Life Insurance Corp. of India and Ors. v. Ganesh Ram Chopra

Rajasthan HC9 Oct 2018SAW/594/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this petition filed by LIC against a retired employee, the High Court examined the quashing of a penalty for non-utilization of LTC advance. The Court held that non-utilization did not breach service rules if the employee informed the department, and the penalty was quashed as it violated the department's own recovery instructions.

What did the court decide?

The appeal against the quashing of the penalty was dismissed; the penalty was upheld as rightly quashed by the lower court.

Life Insurance Corp. of India and Ors. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 594/2014

¶3

The Life Insurance Corporation of India And Ors.

----Appellants

Versus

Ganesh Ram Chopra

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mr. Rajeev Purohit with Mr. Shashank R. Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuleep Mathur with Ms. Nidhi Sharma

¶9

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶10

Judgment

¶11

09/10/2018

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

Challenge to the impugned order dated 15.01.2014 by the appellants is premised on the plea that the Division Bench judgment in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.165/2006 Sandeep Bansal vs. Life Insurance Corporation has been wrongly treated as a precedent. Why said judgment would not be a precedent? Learned counsel for the appellant states that in case of Sandeep Bansal he had taken LTC advance to travel by a higher class railway accommodation but actually travelled in a lower class and the un-utilized amount of the LTC was required to be refunded back. In the instant case, the respondent did not utilize the LTC advance at all.

¶14

In our view, this would make no difference.

¶15

[SAW-594/2014]

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

The appellant has issued LIC (Leave Travel Concession) Instructions, 1994. Clause 19(vii) of the Instructions reads as under:

¶18

“(vii) The employee concerned should refund LTC advance sanctioned to them within 7 days after the advance drawn by them becomes due for refund as per clause (vi) above, under the instructions. If the employee fails to refund it within the prescribed period of 7 days then the amount of advance due for return or refund shall be recovered from the next pay bill of the employee.”

¶19

The said clause has been interpreted by the Division Bench that the only obligation on the employee is to inform full or partial non-utilization of the LTC advance. LIC would then be entitled to refund by effecting recoveries from the next pay bill if the employee does not refund the amount.

¶20

Meaning thereby, if the employee informs the department of non or under-utilization of the LTC amounts no disciplinary action can be initiated because no service rule would be breached. 7. Admittedly the respondent availed 16,000/- as LTC advance₹ on 29.05.1997. He did not avail the journey by train which he had proposed to do so. He informed the department of said fact. The date is not forthcoming. The department did not deduct money from the salary payable. On 18.07.1997 the respondent deposited ₹4,000/-. In the next month, on 07.08.1997, he deposited another sum of 4,500/-. Thereafter from the salary bills₹ ₹3,443/-, 1,000/-, 440/- and 2,617/- were deducted. In this₹ ₹ ₹ way the department recovered 16,000/-.₹

¶21

On 13.12.2000 a charge-sheet was issued alleging the wrong of temporarily mis-appropriating the amount of the Corporation. The respondent admitted the facts but pleaded no violation of law in view of clause 19(vii) of the Instructions of 1994. He was held guilty and penalty of reduction in pay scale by two stages in the

¶22

[SAW-594/2014]

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

time scale of pay was levied. Whether the same was permanent having future effect has not been indicated in the penalty. As noted above, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is that the law declared by the Division Bench in the writ petition filed by Sandeep Bansal would apply. Meaning thereby, if an employee of LIC avails LTC advance and does not utilize the same, fully or in part, he has to inform the department and it is for the department then to effect recovery from the salary bills.

¶25

As noted above, the department did not effect recovery from the salary bills for the months of July and August, 1997. The respondent paid 4,000/- and 4,500/- on his own on 18.07.1997₹ ₹ and 07.08.1997. Thereafter balance amount was deducted from the salary payable.

¶26

Thus, we find no merit in the appeal. The penalty levied upon the respondent has rightly been quashed by the learned Single Judge.

¶27

The appeal is dismissed.

¶28

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ

¶29

Mohit Tak

Life Insurance Corp. of India and Ors. v. Ganesh Ram Chopra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Life Insurance Corp. of India and Ors. v. Ganesh Ram Chopra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.S. Panwar Vs Sh. R. Subrahmanyam and Ors.

Shivshanker Nagada Vs Judge,Labour Court and Anr.

Champa Lal Milap Chand Jain Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Union of India through General Manager Vs Kamali Devi

Malaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sajjan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan