Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 1727
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Aniruddha Roy, J
Munmun Naskar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.A. 10001 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Kallol Basu, Mr. Ujjal Ray, Mr. Arpa Chakraborty, Mr. Atreya Chakraborty
For the Respondents: Mr. Vipul Kundulia, Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Ms. Shradhya Ghosh, Mr. Dhirodatto Chaudhuri, Mr. Avishek Guha, Mr. Subhajit Das
Pending issues before the Supreme Court preclude final orders in the writ petition unless rules are declared ultra vires.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 20(2), and 21 - Challenge to the Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers Rules - Petitioner's claim that rules confer unreasonable powers to terminate services and create a discriminatory class - Previous orders noted - Allahabad High Court decision affirming intra vires status of said rules presented as evidence. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Judicial propriety - The court observes the ongoing special leave petition and refrains from issuing final orders in the writ petition pending resolution by the Supreme Court. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contests specific rules from the LICI's terms of service declared unlawful under constitutional articles, with various same relief petitions pending.
Findings of Court:
No final order shall be passed by LICI during the pendency of the issues before the Supreme Court, affirming ongoing judicial procedures.
Issues: The main issue is whether the rules being challenged are ultra vires the Constitution as claimed by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court indicates that unless ruled otherwise, the presumption is that the rules are intra vires, and proper judicial procedure inhibits final decisions amid pending higher court resolution.
Result: Proceeding against the petitioner may continue, but no final order shall be passed.
Court No. 2 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
24.6.2025 Appellate Side (Item No. 4)
W.P.A. 10001 of 2025 (AB)
Munmun Naskar VS Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Kallol Basu Mr. Ujjal Ray Mr. Arpa Chakraborty Mr. Atreya Chakraborty …. for the petitioner Mr. Vipul Kundulia Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee Ms. Shradhya Ghosh Mr. Dhirodatto Chaudhuri …. For Union of India Mr. Avishek Guha Mr. Subhajit Das For respondent nos. 2 to 4/LICI Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.
Mr. Kallol Basu, learned counsel with Mr. Ujjal Ray, learned counsel and Mr. Atreya Chakraborty, learned counsel appear for the petitioner.
Mr. Bipul Kundulia, learned counsel appears for respondent no. 1/Union of India.
Mr. Avishek Guha, learned counsel appears for respondent nos. 2 to 4/L.I.C.I.
Prayers (d) and (e) from the writ petition are quoted below:
“d) A Declaration do issue declaring Rules 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 ulta vires Articles 14, 16, 20(2) and
21 of the Constitution of India for conferring uncanalised and unbridled powers upon the Respondents to terminate the services of a class of employees in an unreasonable and illegal manner;
e) A Declaration do issue declaring Rules 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Amendments Rules, 2016 ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India since it is tantamount to creation of a class within a class of permanent Class II category Development Officers in an unreasonable, illegal and discriminatory manner;”
Claiming identical reliefs several writ petitions are pending before this Court in which diverse orders were passed from time to time. One such order date April 10, 2025 was also passed by this Court in W.P.A. 7514 of 2025 In the matter of: Koushik Mondal Vs. Union of India & Ors Mr. Kallol Basu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to an interim order dated April 15, 2024 passed by a co-
ordinate bench at page 222 to the writ petition. L.I.C.I. has preferred an appeal from the same being MAT 1222 of 2024. The appeal was disposed of with the following observations: “2. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge noticed that there are subsisting interim orders passed by the Coordinate Bench in a number of writ petitions spanning from 2019 till 2023. In view of subsistence of such interim orders, learned Single Judge proceeded to grant the same interim order to the writ petitioner by the impugned order.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, there are orders of different High Courts which did not grant such interim order.
4. The writ petition is yet to be finally decided. There subsists interim orders passed in a number of writ petitions spanning over a period of 2019 and 2023.
5. Learned Single Judge as a Coordinate Bench in respect of other learned Single Judges who passed interim orders was bound to follow such interim order granted.
6. Consequently, learned Single Judge passed the same interim order.
7. We find no infirmity in the exercise of such discretion by the learned Single Judge warranting an interference in an intra Court appeal.
8. M.A.T. 1222 of 2024 along with connected applications, if there by any, are disposed of.”
In view of the above, an interim order was passed by this Court on April 10, 2025 to the effect that the proceeding against the petitioner may continue but no final order shall be passed. The proceeding shall abide by the result of the writ petition. Parties were directed to exchange their affidavits. The said order date April 10, 2025 also noted pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Today, when the matter has been taken up for consideration Mr. Avishek Guha, learned counsel and Mr. Vipul Kundulia, learned Senior counsel though b
