K. Subramania Pillai v Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` K.SUBRAMANIA PILLAI, 48 YEARS, S/O.SRI.M.KUMARASWAMY PILLAI, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,LIC OF INDIA,BRANCH NO.2, ERNAKULAM, ELIAS CHAMBERS,BANERJEE ROAD,KOCHI-18, RESIDING AT SREEPAADHAM, 54/2704, VIDHYA NAGAR,KADAVANTHARA,KOCHI-682020. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.) SRI.K.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN THYKOODAM ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, ERNAKULAM, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, "JEEVAN PRAKASH", P.B.NO.1133, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-682011. 2SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, BRANCH NO.II, ELIAS CHAMBERS, BANERJEE ROAD,, KOCHI-682 018. 3LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, "YOGA KSHEMA", JEEVAN BINA MARG, MUMBAI-400021. BY ADV SRI.S.EASWARAN ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -2- ``` ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 1[st] day of March, 2023 This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P14 order dated 24.09.2010 and P18 calculation statement. 2. The case has a checkered history. While the petitioner was working as Development Officer, Ernakulam, Branch No.2, was served with a memo of charges dated 09.08.1994 under Rule 39 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Rules, 1960 (‘the LIC Rules’, for short). The said charge was duly replied, but dissatisfied with the same, enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer recommended removal from the service, however, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 23.08.1996 (Ext.P1) imposed the penalty of reduction in the basic pay to the minimum in time scale applicable to him under regulation 39 (1) (d) of the LIC Rules and the petitioner was taken back into the service. 3. The aforementioned order was assailed in this Court, in O.P.No.30853 of 2000. This Court vide ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -3- ``` judgment dated 01.03.2007 dismissed the petition. However, the matter was taken before the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1218 of 2007 and the Division Bench, by judgment dated 09-07-2009, allowed the writ appeal setting aside the order Ext.P1 and ordered that the petitioner is entitled to monetary benefits and the same be disbursed within three months from the date of the production of the copy of the judgment. It is pertinent to mention that against the same order, an SLP was filed which was also dismissed. 4. The petitioner submitted request for release of the benefits but was deferred on account that the matter was being adjudicated and finally, by impugned communication Ext.P14, realizing that the arrears of salary was Rs.8,14,070.87, after deducting the incentive bonus, arrived at a figure of Rs.62,252/-, which amount was accepted by the petitioner under protest. During the interregnum, a contempt petition was also filed and the factum of Exts.P14 and P18 was brought to the notice. The contempt court gave liberty to the petitioner to ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -4- ``` challenge the aforementioned order and it is under these circumstances, present writ petition has been filed. 5. Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan the learned Senior Counsel assisted by instructing counsel, in support of the writ petition raised the following submissions: i) Appraisal performance of a Development Officer is required to be conducted every subsequent year of service at the end of 12 (twelve) months of service from the last appraisal date for payment of annual remuneration. The amount which has been reduced for making the payment is for the period when the petitioner had been working in the department as Development Officer but, at a lesser pay, that is with effect from 01.08.1996 to 31.07.2010. After the judgment of this Court, was entitled to full remuneration. ii) It is not the case that the petitioner had not performed any work, therefore, was not entitled to any incentive based on the principle of no work no pay. There is no rule or regulation empowering the respondents to carry out the re-appraisal of the performance for the purpose ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -5- ``` of determining the expense list after a gap of almost 14 (fourteen) years that too, at the back of the petitioners without giving any opportunity of hearing. The impugned action could not have been taken except for obtaining a clarification from the competent court, i.e., the Division Bench of this Court which allowed the writ appeal. iii) Rule 2 (C) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1989 (‘Rules, 1989’, for short) defines ‘annual remuneration’, which would means the basic pay, special pay, personal pay, dearness allowance, all other allowances and non-profit sharing or ex-gratia bonus due to, or paid to, a Development Officer during the appraisal year and also includes the expenses payable or reimbursed to him or incurred by the Corporation during the year in respect of traveling, residential etc, but does not include incentive bonus. ‘Incentive bonus’ is prescribed under Rule 17 which means an incentive bonus under any scheme approved by the corporation to be allowed to the Development ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -6- ``` Officer for any preceding year if his cost ratio with reference to the annual remuneration in that year does not exceed 20% of the eligible premium. iv) The petitioner continued to discharge duty with less remuneration and undertaken business for LIC. It is not the case of the respondents that the cost ratio exceeded 20 % of the eligible premium. The calculation statement Ext.P18 do not reflect the same. The statutory scheme relied upon during the course of hearing by the respondents would also not support the case for the reason that the expression ‘eligibility’ defined in Clause 4 of that Scheme dated 6.10.2004 would envisage that a confirmed Development Officer whose cost ratio (i.e., ratio of his annual remuneration in any appraisal year to eligible premium of that year and expressed as percentage of such eligible premium), did not exceed 13%, in an appraisal year shall only become eligible for grant of incentive bonus in respect of that appraisal year in accordance with the scheme. Petitioner was never been put to any notice that during the period 1996-2010, ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -7- ``` though had been performing the duties of the Development Officer, with less remuneration, his incentive bonus ever exceeded the prescribed limit, enabling the respondents to reduce the incentive bonus while releasing the arrears in terms of the judgment of this Court. v) ‘Consequential benefits’ has been defined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Badrinath Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu & Others** (2000) 8 SCC 395. It has been laid down that the respondents cannot, at a later point of time by order of superior authority or on recommendation of the state truncate the amount as it would not have any force in the eyes of law. vi) In **AIR 1962 SC 1334, Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma vs State Of Uttar Pradesh,** it has been stated that the effect of decree granted by the Civil Court would mean that the person was neither deemed to be lawfully dismissed nor was facing any handicapedness with regard to the remuneration; in other words, there was no infraction once the order of penalty resulting ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -8- ``` into reduction of remuneration has been set aside. The act of the respondents is without sanction of law and is deprivation of property without complying with the principles enshrined under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. 6. Sri.S.Easwaran, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents countered the argument of the learned Senior Counsel on the premise that there is no violation of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court for the reason that Development Officer belongs to Class II category of the employees under the Staff Regulations. In addition to the normal fixed pay, is also entitled to certain benefits like expenses incurred by him for the purposes of doing business, convayance allowance, telephone reimbursement and other expenses. The expenses, aforementioned, are reimbursed to them on such statements being furnished. After every 12 (twelve) months, appraisal of the performance is conducted and the method for carrying out is as per the Rules 1989 ibid. The purpose of conducting the ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -9- ``` appraisal is to ascertain whether the Development Officer had worked within the cost ratio or exceeded the expense limit. In other words, the Development Officer required to work within the expense limit in an operational areas specified under the rules. In case his expense exceeds the limit in an appraisal year and continue to do so, will definitely invite disincentives or even termination under rule 18 of the 1989 Rules. 7. In the present case, when the penalty order was upheld by the chairman, his basic pay was re-fixed and incentive bonus was re-calculated based on annual remuneration after each years appraisal. In view of the reduction of the pay to basic scale, the petitioner’s annual remuneration was calculated and appraisal was conducted on his performance from time to time. 8. Petitioner was able to work within the expense limits because of the reduction in the basic pay which resulted into less annual remuneration. Therefore, his cost ratio remained within the prescribed limit entitling him for incentive bonus. It is an admitted fact that from ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -10- ``` 1996 onwards, consequent to imposition of penalty, his basic pay was reduced and was entitled for incentive bonus at a lesser rate during the relevant years based on the appraisal conducted from 1996-2010. Consequent to restriction of pay pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment, he was entitled to re-fixation of pay and all other benefits including annual remuneration had to undergo change as he was entitled for arrears of salary from 1996 onwards. On the basis of the calculation, arrears of salary was found to be 8,41,000/-. But, in case the grievance of the petitioner is accepted, it would lead to an anomalous situation where LIC would pay double benefit to the petitioner, for, the issue in the present case is that the petitioner wants arrears of wages but is not prepared to reimburse the increased rate of incentive bonus and thus supported Exts.P14 and P18 and urged this Court for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paperbook. 10. Operative part of the order imposing penalty of ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -11- ``` ## reduction in the basic pay Ext.P1 reads as under: “NOW THEREFORE by virtue of powers vested in me under Regulation 39 of LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, I do hereby order that the penalty of Removal under Regulation 39(1)(f) proposed against Shri K.Subramania Pillai be and is hereby modified to that of reduction in basic pay to the minimum in the time scale of pay applicable to him under Regulation 39(1)(d) of LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, and the modified penalty is hereby imposed. Dated at Ernakulam, the 23[rd] day of August, 1996.” 11. The aforementioned order was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 09.07.2009 Ext.P5. Operative part of the order reads as under: “In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is reversed and Exts.P14, P16 and P18 are quashed. The appellant will be entitled to get all consequential benefits. The monetary benefits payable as per this judgment shall be released to him within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.” ## 12. On perusal of the same, it is evident that the ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -12- ``` monetary benefits payable to the petitioner, as per the judgment, was to be released within three months. When the aforementioned amount was not released, petitioner was impelled to approach this Court vide contempt petition. Contempt Court vide order dated 05.10.2010 gave the liberty to the petitioner to challenge the correctness of the amount by way of appropriate proceedings, which reads as under: “As per the judgment dated 09.07.2009 in W.A. 1218 of 2007, the respondents were directed to fix the benefit payable to the petitioner and to have it disbursed as specified therein. The contention of the petitioner is that, since the respondent has not given effect to the said verdict till date, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court again by filing the present contempt matter. 2. The respondent has filed counter affidavit rebutting the averments and allegations and also producing copies of the relevant documents as Exts. R1 (a) to R1(d). The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the due amount of Rs 62,252/- payable to the petitioner has already been disbursed, as borne by Ext. R1(d). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -13- ``` submits that, much higher amount is due to the petitioner. The learned counsel however submits that, the matter could be closed, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to dispute the correctness of the amount by way of appropriate proceedings. 4. In the above circumstances, we do not find it necessary to proceed with the contempt matter. Accordingly, the same is closed, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner as above.” 13. The order Ext.P14 was produced before the Contempt Court as Ext.R1(a). It will also be expedient to extract the impugned order dated 24.09.2010 Ext.P14. The same reads as under: “To 24.09.2010 Sri K.Subramania Pillai, Development Officer, S.R.No 560079, LIC of India, Branch Office, ERNAKULAM 2. Dear Sir, **Re: Payment on restoration of benefts as per Court Order** ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -14- ``` Please refer to letter P & IR dated 04.08.2010_intimating you about the recalculation of all consequential benefits and pay/ recovery by this office as per judgment dated 09/07/2009 on WA No. 1218/2007. We enclose herewith our cheque no. 832093 for Rs 62,252/-(Rupees Sixty two thousand two hundred and fifty two only) dated 24.09.2010 drawn on Corporation Bank, Cloth Bazaar Road, Ernakulam, being the net amount payable to you as per calculation. A copy of the calculation sheet is also enclosed herewith for your reference. Kindly acknowledge the receipt of cheque and calculation sheet. Please also note that on restoration of pay, your basic pay w.e.f. 01.08.2010 is Rs.18,560/-. Difference upto and including Aug, 2010 is paid along with this and salary at the restored rate will be paid from September, 2010 onwards. Yours faithfully, Sd/- ## Sr. Branch Manager” 14. From the above, it is evident that the respondents enclosed the cheque of Rs.62,252/- (Rupees Sixty two thousand two hundred and fifty two only) after ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -15- ``` deducting the amount of incentive bonus. In the counter affidavit, respondents assessed the arrears of the salary and deduction in the following manner. |Particulars||Amount(Rs.)rounded of to| |---|---|---| |||nearest Rs.| |Salary arrears up to the month||| |of July, 2010||- 8,41,071/-| |Arrears for the month|of August,|| |2010||- 7,081/-| |Total arrears mentioned in||- 8,21,152/-| |Ext.P18||| |Recovery<br>made|towards|| |incentive bonus||- 6,46,269/-| |Less:<br>deduction|towards|| |provident fund||- 60,490/-| |Less: Deduction towards income||- 52,500/-| |tax||| |Add: Addition on account of||- 359/-| |non-recovery of PF due to EOL||| |**Net amount**||-**62,252/-**| 15. On perusal of the above, it is evident that the petitioner was entitled to arrears of Rs.8,21,152/(Rupees Eight lakh twenty one thousand one hundred and fifty two only) and recovery towards the incentive bonus was made for a sum of Rs.6,46,269/- (Rupees Six lakh forty six thousand two hundred and sixty nine only). ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -16- ``` 16. Now it is to be determined whether the respondents are justified in deducting the incentive bonus in accordance with the rules of the scheme. For dealing with such question, it would be appropriate to reproduce definitions of annual remuneration, cost ratio and incentive bonus. “2.Defnintions: xxxxx (a) xxxxxx (b) xxxxxx (c) “annual remuneration” means the basic pay, special pay, personal pay, dearness allowance, and all other allowances and nonprofit sharing or ex-gratia bonus due to, or paid to, a Development Officer during the appraisal year and includes the expenses payable or reimbursed to him or incurred by the Corporation during that year in respect of travelling, residential telephone and insurance premium and taxes on motor vehicles, but does not include incentive bonus and additional conveyance allowance paid to him in accordance with rule17. (d) xxxxxxx ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -17- ``` ## (B) (e) xxxxxxx (f) “cost ratio” in relation to a Development Officer means the ratio which his annual remuneration in any year, or his ad hoc annual remuneration, if applicable, bears to the eligible premium of that year and expressed as a percentage of such eligible premium. (g)”decrement” means reduction in basic pay by one or more stages in the scale of pay on one or more occasions; (h)”Development Officer” means a whole time salaried employee of the Corporation belonging to Clause II appointed as Development Officer and includes any person who became an employee of the Corporation on the 1[st] day of September, 1956 and is working as a Development Officer; (i)”disincentive” means reduction in conveyance allowance or non-grant of increment or decrement as provided in the “Table of Disincentives” (j)”eligible premium” means such proportion as may be specified by the Corporation from time to time of the first year’s premiums received by the Corporation in respect of the business secured by the agents in the organisation of a Development Officer, which is adjusted in the ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -18- ``` relevant appraisal year. Xxxxxxxx ## 17.Incentives Incentive bonus under any scheme approved by the Corporation may be allowed to a Development officer for any preceding year if his cost ratio with reference to his annual remuneration in that year does not exceed twenty percent of the eligible premium of that year.” 17. It is a matter of record that percentage of the incentive bonus keeps on increasing or decreasing and the time when the rules came into force was 20% thereafter, as per the contention of counsel for the respondent, increased to 30%. 18. Ext.P14 order was enclosed by a calculation Ext.P18. The heading of Ext.P18 reads as under: “ CALCULATION SHEET OF DIFFERENCE OF BENEFITS PAYABLE TO Sri.SUBRAMANIA PILLAI, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ON RESTORATION OF BENEFITS |Sl.<br>No|Apprai<br>sal<br>Period|Salary<br>arrears<br>includin<br>g P.F.|Deducti<br>ons<br>Additio<br>ns|Income<br>added to<br>cost for<br>re-<br>opening<br>of<br>appraisal|Amount Paid|Amount Paid|Amount Paid|Amount Paid|Amount Payable|Amount Payable|Amount Payable|Amount Payable|Amount<br>to<br>be<br>recovere<br>d| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| ||||||Basic<br>I B|Increase<br>in I B|Reimb<br>urseme<br>nt|Total|Basic<br>I B|Increase<br>in I B|Reimbur<br>sement|Total|| ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -19- ``` ” 19. On perusal of the same it is evident that the calculation sheet do not specify the percentage of basic incentive bonus whether it exceeded the cost ratio/annual remuneration or not. 20. The pleadings of the counter affidavit are vague and evasive. It also do not specify the percentage of incentive bonus which the petitioner was entitled to and whether increase in the remuneration/salary had exceeded the expenses and therefore was duty bound to reimburse. For the sake of brevity, relevant portions of the counter affidavit reads as under: “………………...In the case of the petitioner the penalty of reduction in the basic pay to the minimum in the time scale was imposed to the Development officer by order dated 23.8.1996 which was upheld by the Chairman by order dated 18.6.1999 and accordingly his basic pay was re-fixed and the incentive bonus were recalculated based on annual remuneration after each years appraisal. In view of reduction of pay to his basic scale consequent to the imposition of penalty, the Petitioner’s annual ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -20- ``` remuneration was calculated and appraisal conducted on his performance from time to time. Since his basic pay reduced consequent to the imposition of penalty, the Petitioner was able to work within the expense limit because of the reduction in the basic pay thereby resulting less annual remuneration. Therefore his cost ratio remained within the prescribed limit therein entitling him for an incentive bonus. ……………………. ……………………... The issue in the present case is that the Petitioner wants arrears of wages but he is not prepared to reimburse increased rate of incentive bonus that he was drawn at the relevant period under which he was working in the minimum pay which was fixed consequent to the imposition of penalty. The reappraisal of business is done as per rules of the Corporation for finding out whether the development Officer is working within his prescribed expense limit or beyond his prescribed expense limit and thereby attracts any incentive or disincentive.” 21. The expression ‘consequential remedy’ do not require any further clarification as it would entail into all the benefits which the person was entitled to had he been in a job or drawing the salary. In this case, it is not ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -21- ``` a case that the petitioner was out of the job on imposition of the penalty imposing reduction of the salary. 22. Petitioner has been generating business for the respondents and incurring the expenses within the permissible limit. For doing such business as per the premium received by taking into consideration the cost ratio, was getting incentive bonus. Nowhere in the rules or in the scheme it is mentioned that in case the salary of a development officer is increased, the business is generated and eligible incentive bonus would considerably be reduced. Hypothetically had in case the petitioner scale increased during the period he remained in job and had generated the business with the same zeal and passion, as his salary or scale had not increased, he would not have been entitled to reimburse the respondent of the incentive bonus as tried to be projected. Respondents have been remiss in not explaining in the entire counter affidavit and the calculation enclosed along with the impugned order as to at what “percentage” they had deducted the incentive ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -22- ``` bonus, which according to them exceeded the cost ratio, after the judgment of the Division Bench. Not only this, even for such exercise petitioner was never associated. Principle of natural justice have been violated with impunity. If at all some clarification was required at the end of the respondents, nothing prevented them to move appropriate application before the Division Bench before taking steps as reflected in the impugned order. In the absence of the same, in my view, it is a blatant contempt of this Court and this Court cannot remain mute spectator for not taking action under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The act of harassment at the hands of the respondents thus is writ large. They were hellbent to harass the petitioner one way or the other, earlier by imposing the penalty which has been set aside as it did not conform to the principles of law in view of the detailed reasoning rendered by the Division Bench of this Court. Exercise undertaken by the respondents is wholly contumacious and abberrative. Petitioner has been made to run from pillar to post for the reason that the ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -23- ``` respondents did not honour the judgment of this Court and had also approached the hon’ble Supreme Court. 23. Be that as it may. I am of the view that it is a fit case where the impugned order cannot be permitted to be sustained, accordingly it is set aside and deem it appropriate to impose the costs which would include the element of interest as well as cost of litigation and damages viz. harassment quantified to Rs.10,00,000/(Rupees Ten lakhs only). The justification of imposing Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakh only) is that even if simple interest at the rate of 9% is calculated for a period of fourteen (14) years, it would be almost touching Rs.14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen lakh only). 24. Writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to release the arrears within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Costs also to be paid within the period aforementioned. ``` Sd/- ``` ``` VV AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -24- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25541/2011`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23-08- 1996 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12-06- 1997 OF THE ZONAL MANAGER, LIC, MADRAS. EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18-06- 1999 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ``` - `EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P.NO. 30853 OF 2000-W DATED 01-03-2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.` ``` EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO. 1218/2007 DATED 09-07-2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY EXTRACT OF THE LIFE INSURANCECORPORATIONOFINDIA DEVELOPMENT OFFICERS (REVISION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICES) (AMENDMENT) RULES, 1996-NOTIFICATION DATED 18-07-1996. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY EXTRACT OF THE LIFE INSURANCECORPORATIONOFINDIA DEVELOPMENT OFFICERS (REVISION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) AMENDMENT RULES, 2000. EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY EXTRACT OF THE LIC OF INDIA ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -25- ``` ``` DEVELOPMENT OFFICERS (REVISION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) AMENDMENT RULES, 2005. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P9 ``` ``` PHOTOCOPY OF THE LIC OF INDIA DEVELOPMENT OFFICERS (REVISION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) AMENDMENTRULES,2010-CIRCULAR NO.ZD/1160/ASP/2010 DATED 11-10-2010 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P10 ``` ``` PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14-08- 2009 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P11 ``` ``` PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09-02- 2010 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P12 ``` ``` PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTERED LETTER DATED 05-05-2010 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P13 ``` ``` PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER/INTIMATION DATED04-08-2010OFTHEIST RESPONDENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P14 ``` ``` PHOTOCOPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 24-09-2010 ALONGWITH THE CALCULATION STATEMENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P15 ``` ``` PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROTEST LETTER DATED 25-09-2010 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS 1 & 2. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P16 ``` ``` PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.C. NO. 803 OF 2010-S DATED 05-10-2010 OF ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -26- ``` ``` THIS HON'BLE COURT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P17 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P18 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P19 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P20 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P21 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P22 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P23 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P24 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P25 ``` ``` PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14-12-2010 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ``` ``` PHOTOCOPY OF THE CALCULATION STATEMENT SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ``` ``` PHOTOCOPYOFTHEDETAILSOF CALCULATION OF OLD BASIC PAY AND DA. ``` ``` PHOTOCOPYOFTHEDETAILSOF CALCULATION OF NEW BASIC PAY, DA ETC. ``` ``` PHOTOCOPY OF THE CALCULATION OF DIFFERENCE OF PAY ``` ``` PHOTOCOPY OF THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA (REVISION OF CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) RULES, 1989 PUBLISHED AS PER NOTIFICATION DATED 26-06-1989 ``` ``` PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07-09- 2012 OF THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER IN THE MATTER OF SRI.R.SURESH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. S.R.NO.536775. ``` ``` PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17-09- 2012 IN WP(C) NO. 16769 OF 2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT ``` ``` PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19-11-2012 OF THE SR. BRANCH MANAGER, ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 25541 OF 2011 -27- ``` ``` LIC TO THE SRI. R.SURESH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SR NO.536775 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P26 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CALCULATION OF ARREARS OF SRI. SURESH, REINSTATED DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit R1(a)COPYOFTHECIRCULARNO MKTG/ZD/48/2004 DATED 6-10-2004 Exhibit R1(b)COPY OF CIRCULAR NO MKTG/ZD/13/2012 DATED 22-02-2012 ```