Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. Mukharji, H. K. Bose
K. D. BANERJI - Appellant
Versus
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA - Respondent
A. F. O. O. 290 Of 1959 (Mandamus Appeal)
Decided On : JULY 06, 1960
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION ACT, 1956 - SECTION 11(1), 11(2), 49(2)(BB) - DISCRIMINATION - ASSISTANT BRANCH MANAGER - TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE - CLASSIFICATION - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an Assistant Branch Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, challenged the terms and conditions of his service, claiming discrimination against him in the same class of Assistant Branch Managers. He argued that he was entitled to the scale of pay, motor car allowance, dearness allowance, and basic salary payable to the grade of Assistant Branch Managers in the Life Insurance Corporation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant had no legal right to the claimed scale of pay and allowances. It found that neither an Order under Section 11(2) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, nor a Regulation under Section 49(2)(bb) of the same Act had been made applicable to the appellant. The court also rejected the appellant's argument of discrimination, finding that all Assistant Branch Managers were not of the same class or that no particular Assistant Branch Manager could be a class by himself.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had a legal right to the claimed scale of pay and allowances. 2. Whether the appellant was discriminated against in the same class of Assistant Branch Managers.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 11(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, to provide a guarantee that the existing tenure, terms and conditions, rights and privileges as to pension and gratuity, and other matters would remain the same unless the employment was terminated or such terms and conditions were altered by the Corporation. It found that the appellant's employment had neither been terminated nor its terms and conditions altered, and therefore he was only legally entitled to his pre-existing tenure, terms and conditions. 2. The court applied the principles of classification under Article 14 of the Constitution and held that the appellant could not establish that all Assistant Branch Managers were of the same status, conditions, and terms of emolument and allowances. It found that the appellant's case stood on a special footing, as the Corporation had initially placed him in the category of Inspectors but had to redesignate him as Assistant Branch Manager due to a High Court decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the interim injunction was dissolved. The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments and held that he had no legal right to the claimed scale of pay and allowances, nor was he discriminated against in the same class of Assistant Branch Managers.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution which Sinha, J. dismissed. The matter now comes up in appeal before us. The appellant is one K. D. Banerji, Assistant Branch Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
( 2 ) THE appellant's case is, in effect, to ask for an order of mandamus in his favour directing the respondents to give him the scale of pay, motor car allowance, dearness allowance and basic salary as payable to the grade of Assistant Branch Managers in the Life Insurance Corporation.
( 3 ) IN order to succeed in this contention he has to satisfy this Court that he has a legal right which can be enforced by the writ. That legal right so far as the particular Statute is concerned can only be traced or claimed either under an Order under Section 11 (2) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 or under any Regulations made under Section 49 (2) (bb) of the same Act. Neither any Order under Section 11 (2) nor any Regulation under Section 49 (2) (bb) of the Act has in fact been made applicable to the Appellant.
( 4 ) BEFORE us the learned counsel for the appellant has really not pressed so much his case under Section 11 (2) or Section 49 (2) (bb) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act but has marshalled all his arguments to build up a case of discrimination. The short point made by the appellant's counsel is that the appellant has been discriminated against in the same class of Assistant Branch Managers of the Life Insurance Corporation. With a view to succeed even on this contention the appellant has to satisfy the Court first that all Assistant Branch Managers are of the same class or that no particular Assistant Branch Manager can be a class by himself having regard to his experience, nature of service and other considerations which were applicable to him before his service was taken over by the Life Insurance Corporation.
( 5 ) BEFORE proceeding to discuss and determine these points it may not be out of place to briefly recount the essential facts of this case.
( 6 ) THE petitioner was a Divisional Superintendent of the National Insurance Co. Ltd. from the 1st January, 1955 drawing a fixed salary of Rs. 350/-per month without any grade, Rs. 80/- as clearness allowance and Rs. 170/- as motor car allowance, On the 19th January, 1956 the Life Insurance (Emergency Commissions) Ordinance, 1956 came into force nationalising Life Insurance business in India from the 20th January. 1956. After the nationalisation the petitioner continued as Divisional Superintendent under the Custodian appointed by the Ordinance. The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 came into force on the 18th June, 1956, the appointed day being the 1st September, 1956. Section 11 of the Act made provisions for transfer of service of existing employees of insurance companies to the Corporation. Now on taking over, the Life Insurance Corporation put the petitioner into the category of an Inspector now called Field Officer. The petitioner complained that he deserved a better post and made an application to the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, now reported as P. C. Goyle v. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India. Ramaswami, C. J. delivering judgment for the Division Bench of the Patna High Court with which Raj Kishore Prasad, J. agreed came to the conclusion that the rank of an Inspector of the Life Insurance Corporation was subordinate to that of a Divisional Superintendent in a controlled business which was transferred to the Corporation and that the terms and conditions of service of an Inspector were less advantageous than that of the Divisional Superintendent. In that decision it was held that the order of the Government of India No. 53 dated 1-6-57 made under Section 11 (2) altering the remuneration and other terms and conditions of service of the employees applied only to those who were in supervisory, clerical or subordinate staff grades of the insurers o
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
