THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.9314 of 2015

ORDER:

Heard Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. M.V.Suresh, learned Standing Counsel for 1^st respondent-IRDAI and Mr.K.G.Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms.K.Kiranmayee, learned counsel on record for 2^ndrespondent-IIB.

2. The 1^st respondent-Insurance Regulatory Development Authority, which is an enactment of Parliament under the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority Act, 1999, issued an Employment Notification, dated 19.10.2011, notifying certain vacancies. The petitioners applied in response to the said notification and were successful in the selection process. Petitioner No.1 was appointed as Deputy Director (Life) and was offered Appointment vide Letter dated 24.12.2011. Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 were also successful in the selection process and were also offered appointments. It is their case that the 2ndrespondent-Insurance Information Bureau of India (IIB) was conceptual and is not in existence at the time of issuance of Employment Notification dated 19.10.2011, and the petitioners were recruited to work under 1^strespondent, and petitioner Nos.1, 2, and 5 completed their probation period, whereas the probationary period of petitioner Nos.3 and 4 was extended without disclosing any reasons. It is the grievance of the petitioners that on 24.09.2013, the 2^ndrespondent-IIB issued an Office Order declaring its Organizational Structure and approving the Pay scales for various posts in the

2^ndrespondent, and showing the petitioners under the 2^ndrespondent- IIB. The erstwhile posts of Deputy Director and Assistant Director were trifurcated and the petitioners were given new designations in the newly created posts of Manager, and Analyst, with no linkage with their original pay scales. The said re-designation and changing of their pay scales is done without notice or consent of the petitioners. Petitioners gave many representations to the respondents, the latest one dated 10.03.2015, bringing to the notice of respondents the anomalies in their designation, pay scales and other benefits. The 2^ndrespondent gave Reply dated 03.07.2014 stating that the terms and conditions of appointment of petitioners is not connected to 1^strespondent, and that the 2^ndrespondent has its own independent existence, and that the re-designation of petitioners is validly done and the 2^ndrespondent is entitled to frame their own Human Resources policy and the acceptance of Appointment Offers by the petitioners precludes the petitioners from raising any objection.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the 2^ndrespondent is bound to continue the petitioners in the same designations and under the same terms and conditions under Employment Notification dated 19.10.2011. It is contended that the petitioners are to be treated as employees of 1st respondent as they were recruited for the work of 1^strespondent, and by the 1^strespondent and they were on the rolls of the 1^strespondent even before the 2^ndrespondent was brought into existence. It is contended that the original pay-scale in which the petitioners were recruited would run for 12 years giving them periodical increments and pay raises. It is contended that due to trifurcation of posts and fixation of different pay scales, the petitioners were placed atlowest level of newly created posts and they have to earn promotions subject to the same being provided by the 2^ndrespondent for reaching the maximum in the pay scale. It is contended that the petitioners, due to re-designation, have been in fact downgraded in the nomenclature and the same is impermissible.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further contend that though the letters of appointment dated 24.12.2011 were issued in the name of 2^nd respondent, it was not in existence as on that date and it has no legal capacity to impose terms and