Termination similar to one of compulsory retirement not by way of punishment.

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.

This writ appeal is directed against the order passed in W.P.No.9866 of 1999 dated 1. 2003 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein seeking regular pension or compassionate allowance under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are as follows.

(a) Appellant was appointed as Development Officer in the second respondent Corporation in the year 1962 and prior to his appointment, the appellant worked as Insurance Agent from 1958. The work of the Development Officers will be assessed in terms of certain set of norms to be followed in their performance assessment reports.

(b) On 24. 1976, the Life Insurance Corporation (Staff) Amendment Regulations, 1976, was issued and as per Regulation 5, if a Development Officer failed to bring in eligible premium equal to five times of his annual remuneration in three preceding years, the appointing authority may terminate his services. Regulation 7 states that such termination would not be a penalty within the meaning of regulation 39 of the Staff Regulations.

(c) It is the case of the appellant that the employees negotiated with the Corporation and as per the agreement dated 11. 1981, this was in force till the amendment of Staff Regulations. Poor performance by a Development Officer entails reduction in salary and conveyance allowance and transfer to Class-3 post. The same was objected to by the National Federation of Insurance Field Workers Union and thereafter a tripartite discussion was held between the Corporation, Government and the Federation. Pursuant to that, fresh notification setting aside some of the penalties imposed in the 1976 Regulations was issued, which also provided for re-appointment on reduced basic salary as a matter of course after termination of service of a Development Officer, if he did not satisfy the premium requirement. A further understanding was reached, which was later incorporated in the Staff Regulations, which provided for automatic absorption in clause-III.

(d) The case of the appellant is that he was suffering from dislocation of spinal cord and he was on medical leave for more than one year from November, 1984 to December, 1985, due to which his performance was not up to the mark. But the appellant was terminated due to non-reaching of the norms with effect from 3. 1990 and at that time he completed 27 years of service and had only 21 months of service remaining for his normal retirement.

(e) According to the appellant, the termination of his service does not constitute a penalty. The Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as Pension Rules) was published and under Rule 3 the Employees, who were in service of the Corporation on or after the 1st January, 1986 to retire before 11. 1993 and also to those who joined service and retired after 11. 1993 are entitled to get pension provided an employee is having 10 years of qualifying service. Under Rule 23, resignation/dismissal/removal/termination or compulsory retirement entailed forfeiture of the entire past service and if any person is imposed with a penalty he will not be in a position to get pension. Superannuation pension is provided under Rule 30 and pension on voluntary retirement is provided in Rule 31 on completion of 20 years of service, if accepted by the appointing authority. Rule 33 provides for payment of compassionate allowance not exceeding 2/3rd on normal pension, in case of dismissal/ removal/termination or compulsory retirement, if the competent authority found that the case deserves special consideration. However, the rule was applicable only to the cases of dismissal etc., effected after 11. 1993.

(f) It is further stated that the employees had to opt for pension instead of provident fund and such of those employees who have already received provident fund had to return the same. The appell