Allowed

Bajrang Lal Sharma v. L.I.C. and Ors.

Rajasthan HC30 Jan 2023CW/2765/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a writ petition filed by a retired Development Officer seeking an additional increment (stagnation increment) under the LIC Rules of 2000. The Court held that the respondent authorities failed to comply with mandatory procedural conditions regarding confidential reports and cost ratios before refusing the benefit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed; respondent directed to release stagnation increment with 6% interest and re-fix pension.

Bajrang Lal Sharma Vs L.I.C. and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2022/RJJD/030431]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2765/2004

¶4

Bajrang Lal Sharma aged about 62 years (Retd. D.O.L.I.C.) s/o sh. Gulab Chand b/c Brahmin r/o Near Gopi Nath Ji Mandir Sujangarh, Tehsil Sujangarh, Dist. Churu.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Life Insurance Corporation of India, through its Chairman, Jiwan Bima Marg, Mumbai.

¶8

Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi.

¶9

Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bikaner.

¶10

Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Sujangarh, Dist Churu

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. R.S. Saluja
	Ms. Pragya Lakhani
	Ms. Anmol Saluja
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rajeev Purohit

¶13

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶14

Order

¶15

30th January, 2023

¶16

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶17

The petitioner was appointed as a field Officer on 22.11.1963 with the respondent- Life Insurance Corporation of India. After completion of 36 years of his services, he superannuated on 30.09.2000. Before the retirement of the petitioner, the amended Rules of 2000 named as Life Insurance Corporation of India (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2000 were notified. The said amendment was introduced with an intention to grant an additional benefit of pay to the Development

(2 of 7)

[2022/RJJD/030431]

[CW-2765/2004]

Officers who had reached the maximum of the pay-scale and had not been granted any further financial upgradation for a period of 3 years after that. That is to say, the whole intention was to remove the stagnation in the pay-scale of the Development Officer after reaching to the maximum of the pay-scale.

¶22

The main grievance of the petitioner is that despite him being falling in terms of the amended Rule 4, the additional increment was not granted to him. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only requirement for the grant of the additional increment in terms of Rule 4 was that the incumbent should have reached maximum of the pay scale. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he was granted the last financial upgradation in the year 1988 and thereafter, no increment was granted to him. Therefore, he was entitled to an additional increment in terms of Rule 4.

¶23

Per contra, Counsel for the respondents submitted that the grant of additional increment in terms of Rule 4 was totally subject to the work record of the Development Officer being found satisfactory. He submitted that vide circular dated 20.09.2000, the conditions and the process to be adopted for the purposes of grant of the additional pay were notified/issued and in terms of clause 5 of the said circular, a confidential report pertaining to the period of three years immediately preceding the due date of the addition to the basic pay, was required to be called upon. The employees whose confidential report ranked to be “less than above average” were not be granted the addition to the basic pay. He argued that in the present matter the confidential report of the petitioner

(3 of 7)

[2022/RJJD/030431]

[CW-2765/2004]

showed him to be average and therefore, he was not entitled to the addition to the basic pay.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶29

Before adverting into the complete facts, it would be relevant to note Rule 4(3) of the amended Rules of 2000 which reads as

¶30

under:

¶31

(3). Addition to the Basic Pay after reaching maximum of the scales: Subject to the work record being found satisfactory of a Development Officer, who has reached the maximum of the scale of pay, may be granted an addition to the basic pay equal to the last increment drawn by him, on first day of the month following completion of three years of service after reaching such a maximum or on the first day of the month following the completion of his appraisal year following the date of publication of this notification in the official Gazette, whichever is later, subject to the maximum of two such additions: Provided that no Development Officer shall be entitled to the second such addition to the basic pay before completion of three years after drawing the first such addition.”

¶32

A bare perusal of the above Rule shows that the only requirement for grant of the additional pay is the work record being found to be satisfactory. So far as the satisfactory work is concerned, no parameters for the same have been laid down in the Rules. The only governing factor are the guidelines issued vide Circular dated 20.09.2000. Clause-5 of the circular dated 20.09.2000 as relied upon by the counsel for the respondents reads as under:

¶33

“The appointing authority after due consideration of the reports mentioned above and his leave particulars shall take a decision in writing, either to allow the Development

(4 of 7)

[2022/RJJD/030431]

[CW-2765/2004]

Officer the Addition to the Basic Pay on reaching the maximum of the scale of pay or to defer it by one full year in the proforma given in the annexure hereto. For this purpose, a Development Officer securing less than above average in the confidential reports for a period of three years immediately preceding the due date of the Addition to the Basic Pay on reaching the maximum of the scale of pay is not to be granted the Addition to the Basic Pay on reaching the maximum of the scale of pay. The cost ratio of the Development Officer must not be more than 20% in all the years under consideration and should have earned Incentive Bonus for atleast 2 out of 3 years. The decision of the appointing authority may be conveyed in writing to the Development Officer as far as possible within two months from the due date of the Addition to the Basic Pay on reaching the maximum of the scale of pay. However, it is not necessary to communicate the reasons for not allowing the Addition to the Basic Pay on reaching the maximum of the scale of pay to the employee concerned.”

¶38

The conclusion which can be drawn from the above mentioned clause is that firstly, the officer ought to have secured “less than above average” in the confidential reports for the immediate three preceding years. Secondly, the cost ratio of the officer must not be more than 20% in all the years under consideration and thirdly, the officer should have earned incentive bonus for at least two out of three years.

¶39

Further, vide the said clause it has been mandated that the decision regarding the allowance or the refusal of the addition to the basic pay has to be taken by the appointing authority in writing and the said decision is to be conveyed in writing to the officer concerned as far as possible within two months from the due date.

(5 of 7)

[2022/RJJD/030431]

[CW-2765/2004]

A perusal of the record shows that no order whatsoever issued by the appointing authority in terms of clause 5 of the circular dated 20.9.2000 has been placed on record. No confidential report whatsoever of any of the three preceding years has also been placed on record. The special confidential report pertaining to the period of 1.7.1999 to 30.6.2000 has been placed on record by counsel for the respondents during the course of the arguments. The said document specifies that it has been issued in lieu of the lost performa entered at serial no.1212. Meaning thereby, the original performa had been lost, the fact which has nowhere been stated in the reply by the respondents.

¶44

Moreover, the said report cannot be termed to be a report in terms of the rules of 2000 or the circular dated 20.9.2000. No entries qua the performance statistics of the financial year in question have been filled up in the said report. Only cursory entries regarding the personal traits, behavioural traits, work knowledge and work habits pertaining to the petitioner have been filled up. Vide all the entries as made, he has been graded to be average. Meaning thereby, none of the entries as made, rank the officer to be “below average” . Interestingly, the entries related to the performance statistics as well as the disincentives received by the officer have either been not filled or have been responded as “not known to me”. The said response/entry can in no terms be said to be a confidential report in terms of the governing rules.

¶45

Furthermore, the said report even if taken into consideration, pertained to only one current year, that is, the year in which the additional pay became due to the petitioner. The confidential reports of the next two preceding years have neither been placed

(6 of 7)

[2022/RJJD/030431]

[CW-2765/2004]

on record nor the consideration of the same by the competent authority and the decision thereof has been placed on record. Further, the order-sheets as placed on record by the respondents along with an application filed subsequently as Annexure -R/5 terming the same to be a decision in terms of clause – 5 of circular of the year 2000 also specifically mentions that “on the count of performance his cost ratio is within the prescribed limit of 20%”. Further, the last comment in the said order-sheets reads as under:

¶50

“in view of CR submitted by the BM, although the performance of the DO was good , the BM has stated him average as such the stagnation increment can’t be released.”

¶51

A bare perusal of the above order-sheets makes it clear that the second requirement in terms of clause 5 of circular dated 20.9.2000 had been fulfilled by the petitioner and so far as the third requirement is concerned, it is no one’s case that he did not earn the incentive bonus in the said years. In view of the above analysis this court is of the specific opinion that none of the conditions as required vide clause – 5 of the circular in question has been complied with by the respondent authorities. Neither the confidential reports of the preceding three years were taken into consideration nor any decision on the issue whether the petitioner is entitled to the stagnation increment or not was ever taken by any competent authority in terms of the circular dated 20.9.2000. Lastly, nor was the decision, if any, ever communicated to the petitioner. The reasons for dis-allowance of grant of additional pay whatever stated in the reply are not corroborated by the

(7 of 7)

[2022/RJJD/030431]

[CW-2765/2004]

documents annexed and therefore the same cannot be held to be valid, logical or reasonable.

¶56

In view of the above observations, the present writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The respondent-Corporation is directed to release the stagnation increment to the petitioner in terms of the rules of 2000 with effect from the date of his entitlement within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the present order. As the petitioner stands superannuated, the respondent authorities are consequently directed to re-fix his pension amount after adding the stagnation increment as directed above. The said amount would also carry an interest at the rate of 6% per annum .

¶57

All the pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶58

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶59

T.Singh/-

Bajrang Lal Sharma v. L.I.C. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajrang Lal Sharma v. L.I.C. and Ors.

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

C.T.O.Circle-a,Sriganganagar Vs M/S Sarna Refrigeration

Ramlal Vs Tarachand

M/S Sai Polyplast Vs Santosh Jain

Santosh Kumar Nyol Vs State of Rajasthan

Amit Singh Rajput Vs State of Rajasthan

Nirmal Prakash Bissa Vs State of Rajasthan