Federation of LIC Class-I Officers' Associations represented by its General Secretary, S Rajkumar v Life Insurance Corporation of India & others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN`** ## **`&`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR`** ``` MONDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` ## **`WA NO. 1046 OF 2023`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 20730/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF ``` ## **`KERALA`** ## **`APPELLANT/S:`** - `1 FEDERATION OF LIC CLASS-I OFFICER'S ASSOCIATIONS REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, S RAJKUMAR, AGED 49 YEARS, SON OF P SIVARAJA PILLAI, RESIDING AT "VARANASYAM" NO. TC- TC7/1475/2, KOCHULLOOR, MCH P O, TRIVANDRUM-, PIN - 690011` - `2 V MANOJ KUMAR AGED 49 YEARS SON OF VIJAYAN MENON, BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA LIMITED, KAKKANAD, KOCHI- 682 030, RESIDING AT D2/VB COURT, LFC ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-, PIN - 682017` ``` BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA CENTRAL OFFICE, "YOGAKSHEMA", JEEVAN BIMA MARG, MUMBAI-, PIN - 400121` - `2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL) LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, "YOGAKSHEMA", JEEVAN BIMA MARG, MUMBAI-, PIN - 400021` - `3 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL) LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, "YOGAKSHEMA", JEEVAN BIMA MARG, MUMBAI-, PIN - 400121` - `4 THE CHIEF (PERSONNEL) LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, "YOGAKSHEMA", JEEVAN BIMA MARG, MUMBAI-, PIN - 400121` - `5 THE ZONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, CENTRAL ZONE, JEEVAN SHIKHA , 60-B, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL-, PIN - 462011` - `6 THE ZONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, EASTERN ZONE, 4, C R AVENUE, HINDUSTAN BUILDINGS, KOLKATTA, PIN - 700072` - `7 THE ZONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, EAST CENTRAL ZONE, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING,` ``` WA NO. 1046 OF 2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA-, PIN - 800001 ``` - `8 THE ZONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, NORTHERN ZONE, JEEVAN BHARATI, TOWER 11 124, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001` - `9 THE ZONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, NORTH CENTRAL ZONE, JEEVAN VIKAS, 16/275, MG MARG, CIVIL LINES, KANPUR, PIN - 208001` - `10 THE ZONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, SOUTHERN ZONE, LIC BUILDING, ANNA SALAL, CHENNAI-, PIN - 600002` - `11 THE ZONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, SOUTH CENTRAL ZONE, JEEVAN BHAGYA, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD-, PIN - 500063` - `12 THE ZONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, WESTERN ZONE, YOGAKSHEMA, WEST WING, JEEVAN BIMA MARG, MUMBAI, PIN - 400021` - `13 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, "JEEVAN PRAKASH", PB NO.1133, MG ROAD, KOCHI ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011` - `14 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, "JEEVAN PRAKASH", P B NO. 177, KOZHIKODE CALICUT, PIN - 673001` - `15 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, POLACHIRACKAL MANSION, C M S COLLEGE ROAD, P B NO. 609, KOTTAYAM-, PIN - 686001` - `16 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, "JEEVAN PRAKASH", PB NO. 1001, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004` ``` BY ADV R.S.KALKURA ``` ``` THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WA NO. 1046 OF 2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## JUDGMENT Dated this the 18[th] day of December, 2023 ## ANU SIVARAMAN,J Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The only question which is raised for consideration before us is with regard to the effect of the dies-non admittedly imposed on officers who are the members of the first petitioner Federation for participating in a strike on 18.02.2010. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellants had absolutely no dispute with regard to treating the day as dies-non in accordance with the circular No.SD781/ASP/93 dated 05.01.1993 as informed by the management by Ext.P4 reply dated 17.02.2010. However, it is contended that the treating of the day of strike as dies-non would not amount to postponing of the increment of the officers and that for effecting the postponement of the increment and disciplinary proceedings as provided under Rule 39 of the LIC Regulations, 1960 is required. It is contended that though this aspect was specifically raised before the learned Single Judge, it was not specifically adverted to. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand would bring to our notice, the provisions of the LIC of India ``` WA NO. 1046 OF 2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` (Staff) Rules 1960 which were notified in the Gazette of India, dated 30.06.2021, which were earlier promulgated and were in force as regulations. It is submitted that the provisions of the rules were specific that no officer of the Corporation shall engage himself to participate in any demonstration which involves incitement to an offence nor shall he resort to or abet any form of strike. It is submitted that the consequence of treating of the period as dies non is also provided in the rules, since, rule 56(1)(a) provides that service spent on extra ordinary leave will not count for increment. It is further submitted that the judgments of this court which were relied on by the learned Single Judge specifically explained as to the nature of dies non and held that dies non is the short form of dies non juridicus in latin which means a day on which no legal business would be transacted. It is submitted that if a day is treated as dies non, it would be as if the day did not exist in the service of the employee and it would not count for any service benefits whatsoever. It is contended that the consequence would be that there would be a break of a day in the service of the employee and the earning of increment would have to be reckoned without reference to that day, ie, in this case 18.02.2010. The effect would be that there would be an automatic postponement in the earning of the increment which would be ``` WA NO. 1046 OF 2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` cumulative in effect. It is submitted that this aspect had been specifically considered by the learned Single Judge. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would place reliance on the provisions of Rule 39 as also the judgment of the Apex Court in Kulvant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab [1991 Supp (1) SCC 504] and on a judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 dated 11.04.2023 to contend that the punishment of barring of increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and can be imposed only after complying with the procedures for imposing of a major penalty. 4. Having considered the contentions advanced on both sides, we notice that it is the admitted case of parties that there was a strike called for by the officers on 18.02.2010. By Ext.P3 a notice of strike was attempted to be given, to which, Ext.P4 reply was given by the management which specifically referred to the circular dated 05.01.1993. The respondents have produced a copy of the circular as Ext.R1(a). The manner of treatment of absence of employees due to bandh, strike, curfew etc is specifically referred to in the said circular and it is stated that the employees will not be paid any salary on the principle of ‘no ``` WA NO. 1046 OF 2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` work no pay’ and that their absence “will be treated as extra ordinary leave with attendant consequences”. In the instant case, the rule specifically provides that period spent on extra ordinary leave will not count for increments. 5. A Full Bench in Shaji Sanjayi Nottithodi vs. Managing Director, KSRTC & Others [2017(3) KHC 63], has specified the meaning of dies-non and consequences of such a day on the service of the employee. It had also specified the effect of dies-non. It was specifically found that periods treated as dies-non will not count as service for any benefit including increment and grade promotion. In Ibrahimkutty.K Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, KSRTC , [2015 (1) KHC 479] it was held as under. 18. Dies is the latin word for ‘day’. Dies-non (short for Dies-non Juridicus), in law is the day on which no legal business is transacted or which is not reckoned in counting days for some particular purpose. Also a day that does not count or on which day, there is no activity. 19. Citing Cowell Interpr., (1607-723) the Oxford English Dictionary defines it thus: “Dies A legal day, and that is of two sorts., 1. Dies Juridicus, and 2. Dies-non Juridicus. Dies Juridici are all days given in Term to the parties in Court. Dies-non Juridici are all Sundays in the year, besides, in the several terms particular days.” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2009) 20. In service terms, “Dies-non” means a day, which ``` WA NO. 1046 OF 2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` cannot be treated as duty for any purpose. It does not constitute break in service, but the period treated as “dies-non” does not qualify as service for pensionary benefits or increment. 21. A learned Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Battilal v. Union of India while interpreting FR 54-A(1), has held thus: “The authority imposing the punishment can direct how the period when the employee was out of service shall be treated. When the authority directs that the period will be treated diesnon, it means that continuity of service is maintained, but the period treated dies-non will not count for leave, salary, increment and pension.” 6. Therefore, a period treated as extraordinary leave under the LIC Rules of 1960 or as dies-non is an exemption to the normal rule of treating period of leave as duty. The period of extraordinary leave will not count as duty. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the LIC are authority on the point that treating a day as dies-non would amount to not treating the day as service for any purpose. The obvious effect would be there would be an automatic postponement of the increment due to the employee which is only a consequence of treating the day as extraordinary leave or a day which does not count for the purpose of increment as provided under Rule 56(1)(a) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, staff Rules, 1960. 7. Though the learned senior Counsel placed reliance on Rule 14A of Part I KSR which provides that period of dies-non shall be counted for ``` WA NO. 1046 OF 2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` the purpose of increment and half pay leave, we notice that Part I KSR is not applicable to the employees of Life Insurance Corporation, who were admittedly covered by the 1960 Rules. The decisions relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant only refer to the imposition of the bar of increment as a penalty and not as a result of treating the period as extraordinary leave, as specifically provided in Ext.R1(a) circular, which is not under challenge. The challenge in the writ petition was only against the order refusing to accept the request for condonation of extraordinary leave and to treat it as service for the purpose of increment. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge, does not suffer from any infirmity which requires interference in this intra-court appeal. The appeal fails and hence accordingly dismissed. sd/- ## **`ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE`** ## **`sd/-`** ## **`C.PRATHEEP KUMAR JUDGE`** Nsd ``` WA NO. 1046 OF 2023 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WA 1046/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure ITRUE COPY OF LIC'S (STAFF) REGULATIONS, 1960 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R1(a)True copy of the circular bearing No. ZD/871/ASP/93 dated 05.01.1993 issued by the 1st respondent pertaining to its employees participating in strike ```