Back
2021 Supreme(Jhk) 575
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Shambhu Sharan Giri – Petitioner
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 2032 of 2021
Decided On : 20-12-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nipun Bakshi.
For the Respondent: Mrs. Surabhi.
Subject
Writ Petition - Quashing of Order
Act Referred
Headnote
Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 2017 - Regulations 16(1)(b), 16(1)(h) r/w 12(1) - L.I.C. agency - Terminated in terms with regulations - L.I.C. agency of petitioner has been terminated in terms with regulations 16(1)(b), 16(1)(h) read with regulation 12(1) of Regulations, 2017 with direction to forfeit entire commissions payable to him in terms with Regulation 19(2) of Regulation, 2017 - Held, petitioner has efficacious remedy of preferring appeal against impugned order passed by respondent no. 2 in terms with regulation-20 of Regulations, 2017, court not inclined to entertain the present writ petition - Petitioner is however at liberty to prefer appeal before concerned Zonal Manager of the Corporation against the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 2 in terms with Regulation 20 of Regulations, 2017 – Writ petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.03.2021 (Anneuxre-11 to the writ petition) passed by the Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jamshedpur Divisional Office, Jamshedpur (the respondent no. 2) whereby the L.I.C. agency of the petitioner has been terminated in terms with regulations 16(1)(b), 16(1)(h) read with regulation 12(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 2017 (in short, “the Regulations, 2017”) with direction to forfeit entire commissions payable to him in terms with Regulation 19(2) of the Regulation, 2017.
2. Mrs. Surabhi, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the petitioner has efficacious remedy of preferring appeal before the concerned Zonal Manager of the Corporation against the impugned order dated 25.03.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2 in terms with regulation-20 of the Regulations, 2017.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the petitioner has efficacious remedy of preferring appeal against the impugned order dated 25.03.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2 in terms with regulation-20 of the Regulations, 2017, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. The same is dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner is however at liberty to prefer appeal before the concerned Zonal Manager of the Corporation against the impugned order dated 25.03.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2 in terms with Regulation 20 of the Regulations, 2017.
