$~85 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1822/2026 & CM APPL. 8815-8816/2026 SH. NARENDRA SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gulshan Sharma, Advocate versus THE CHAIRMAN, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD &

ORS. .....Respondents Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 09.02.2026

1. The Petitioner invokes Article 226 to assail (i) the notice for termination of services dated 9^th September, 2024 and (ii) the subsequent termination communicated with last working day shown as 12^th August, 2025. The principal case set up is that the employer acted unfairly by ignoring long-standing medical issues, by not granting a personal hearing, and by rejecting the request for conversion to a clerical/assistant cadre under Para 11(8) of the General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and Other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) Scheme, 1976,, “The scheme” as amended (“the Scheme, 1976”). Facts and chronology

2. The Petitioner last served as Development Officer Grade II at Okhla Operating Office. The employer’s communication records that the Petitioner

was appointed as Development Officer Grade II on 20^th January, 1998 and services were confirmed on 21^st January, 1999.

3. The scheme governs Development Officers. It includes a “Cost Control” framework, which requires that a Development Officer maintains the cost ratio within stipulated limits.

4. The employer’s record sets out the Petitioner’s performance on the cost ratio parameter over successive years. The stipulated cost ratio is shown as 8% for 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, whereas the Petitioner’s actual cost ratio is recorded as 19.26%, 49% and 52.40% respectively, along with corresponding excess cost amounts.

5. Consequences followed under the Scheme. A salary action dated 16^th August, 2022 reduced basic pay by two decrements and fixed the basic at ₹15,650/- from ₹17,710/-; after the 2022 wage revision, the basic pay was revised to ₹24,315/- as the minimum for the scale.

6. The record then shows that the Petitioner again failed to maintain the stipulated cost ratio in 2022-23. For that year, the stipulated ratio is shown as 8%, while the actual ratio is shown as 219.41%, with an excess cost amount of ₹16,65,752.

7. A warning letter dated 30^th August, 2023 was served under Para 11(5) of the scheme, recording that the Petitioner had exceeded the stipulated cost limit for the fourth successive time and cautioning that failure to improve in

2023-24 would expose the Petitioner to termination.

8. For 2023-24 and 2024-25, the employer’s record shows continuing breach, with actual cost ratio recorded as 29.44 (stipulated 8) for 2023–24 and 35.52 (stipulated 10) for 2024-25, with stated excess cost amounts.

9. In that backdrop, and as per Para 11(6) of the Scheme, 1976, the notice for termination was issued on 9^th September, 2024, acknowledged by the Petitioner on 12^th September, 2024. The notice also carried intimation that an appeal could be filed under Para 11(7) within 30 days.

10. The Petitioner availed the appeal remedy. The Petitioner by letter dated 3^rd October, 2024 requested conversion to the administrative side on sympathetic and medical grounds by invoking Para 11(8).

11. The appeal was examined by a three-member committee which referred the case to the competent authority at Head Office for conversion to the assistant cadre on medical grounds on 20^th December, 2024. The medical documents were referred to a doctor, who suggested a stress test by a recognised cardiologist of a recognised hospital.

12. A stress test report dated 27^th May, 2025 was then submitted, which recorded, among other impressions, negative for provocable myocardial ischaemia and good exercise tolerance. The doctor opined that the Petitioner can do moderate physical activities.

13. The competent authority rejected conversion under Para 11(8), recording that the medical condition did not fulfil the criteria and that there were no such “extenuating circumstances” warranting conversio