D.N.Sinha, J. - (1.) The short facts in this case are as follows : The petitioner joined the National Insurance Co. Ltd., a company carrying on business of life insurance, sometime in April 1955. At the relevant time he was working as a Divisional Superintendent. Sometime in January, 1956 was promulgated the Life Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance (1 of 1956) by which all life insurance business in India was nationalised. Under this Ordinance, the management of all life insurance offices including that of the said National Insurance Co. Ltd., vested in the Central Government. This was later on followed by the Life Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act 1956. This Act gave the Central Government a suitable opportunity for establishing an autonomous body namely, the Life Insurance Corporation of India. From 20th January, 1958 to 31st August 1956 the Central Government managed the business of the insurance offices through a number of officials designated as 'Custodians', who were directly responsible to the Finance Ministry. The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (Act No. 31 of 1956) came into operation on the 1st September, 1956. By this Act, was established an autonomous corporation namely, the Life Insurance Corporation of India. All controlled business of insurers who carried on life insurance business in India became vested in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'). Under Section 11(1) of the said Act, every whole-time employee of an insurer whose controlled business had been transferred to and vested In the Corporation and who was employed by the insurer wholly or mainly in connection with his controlled business immediately before the appointed day (1st of September, 1956) became an employee of the Corporation and was to hold office therein by the same tenure, at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and with the same rights and privileges as he would have held on the appointed day if the Act had not been passed. It further provided that this would continue unless and until his employment in the Corporation was terminated or until his remuneration, terms and conditions of service were duly altered by the Corporation, Sub-section (2) of Section 11 granted power to the Central Government to alter the terms of service of such employees if it was necessary for the purpose of rationalising the pay-scales of all employees of insurers whose controlled business had been transferred to and vested in the Corporation or for the purpose of reducing the remuneration payable to employees, in cases where in the interest of the Corporation and its policy-holders such reduction was called for. If such alteration was not acceptable to any employee, his services could be terminated upon payment of compensation. By Section 48 of the said Act, the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, make rules to carry out the purposes of the said Act. Such rules are to be laid, for not less than thirty days, before both Houses of Parliament and shall be subject to such modification as Parliament may make. Under Section 49, the Corporation has been given the power with the previous approval of the Central Government, to make regulations not inconsistent with the said Act and the rules made thereunder. One of the subjects on which such regulations may be made, relate to the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the Corporation. In exercise of the power granted to the Central Government under Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the said Act, the Central Government passed an order dated 1st June, 1957. Para 4 of the said order provided that the employees who were in supervisory posts on the 31st August, 1956 shall be fitted in as superintendents or Section head; only to the extent of the number of such posts available and on the basis of a selection which shall take into account salary, experience in supervisory capacity and qualifications of every such employee. It appears that according to the annexure to the said order, Superintendents belong to class III category on a pay-scale of Rs. 200-20-500/-. On the 30th December, 1957 the Central Government passed an order under Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the said Act, known as the Life Insurance Corporation Field Officers (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Services) Order, 1957. This is also known as the 'categorisation order', or the 'Blue Order', as it was printed on blue paper. This is the order which is the subject-matter of dispute in this application. The most important thing in this order is the definition of a 'Field Officer' which runs as follows: "2(c). 'Field Officer' means a person whether designated by an insurer as Branch Manager, Branch Secretary, Assistant Branch Manager, Assistant Branch Secretary, Zonal Agency Manager, Superintendent of Agencies, Divisional Superintendent, Organiser or by any other name, who before the 1st day of September, 1956, was wholly or mainly engaged in the development of new life insurance business for the insurer by supervising, either directly or through one or more intermediaries, the work of persons procuring or soliciting new life insurance business, and who was remunerated by a regular monthly salary; and who has become an employee of the Corporation under Section 11 of the Act; but does not include any person now in the employment of the Corporation as Assistant Branch Manager, Branch Manager or in any higher capacity."
(2.) Field Officers have a pay scale of Rs. 125-500, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 49 of the said Act read with paragraph 11 of the Categorisation Order, the Corporation has framed certain regulations called the 'Life Insurance Corporation of India (Fixation of Pay and Allowances of Field Officers) Regulations, 1958'. This is dated 2nd December 1957 and inter alia provides that the pay and allowances of Field Officers should be fixed upon the basis of actual performance. In other words, Field Officers were to be fitted in into their pay-scales according to their performance. It was also contemplated that a Special Committee would be appointed by the end of December, 1957 to examine the cases, inter alia of all supervisory officers who were required to work as Field Officers. This shows that all employees of insurers who were working in a supervisory capacity were not required to work as Field Officers. Some were and some were not.
(3.) The definition of 'Field Officer' as given in the Categorisation Order, shows clearly that the Categorisation. Order contemplates a classification according to the nature of work done by tne employee. The definition clearly states that only those would be entitled to be called 'Field Officers' who, before the 1st day of September, 1956 were wholly or mainly engaged in the development of new life insurance business for the insurers, a branch of activity which may properly be described as 'Field Work', as opposed to office work, or work which has nothing to do with the procuring or soliciting of new life insurance business. In this background, I will have to examine certain other allegations which have been made in the petition, forming the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner of unconstitutional discrimination. The respondent No. 6 in this application is Keshab Chandra Mukherjee. He joined the National Insurance Co. Ltd. as Divisional Superintendent in October, 1955. It will be noted that under the insurers, both the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 held the same designation. After the nationalisation of all life insurance business in India, both the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 continued to be called 'Divisional Superintendents'. After the 'appointed day' however, when the Corporation came into existence, the respondent No. 6 became a Branch Manager under the Corporation, whereas the petitioner continued as Divisional Superintendent until 21st November, 1956 when by an order of the Divisional Manager the petitioner was designated as an 'Inspector' and attached to the City Branch temporarily located at 23 Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta. In connection with this allocation and re-designation, it is useful to look into the interim report of a Committee headed by the Minister for Revenue and Civil Expenditure, known as the 'Shah Report' which runs as follows: "15. There were considerable difficulties in assessing relative claims of officers as to seniority and gradation. Designations in companies did not in every case indicate identical duties, or functions involving the same level of responsibility. Even where the functions and the level of responsibility were the same, the size of the Company and the nature of its operations meant different degrees of training and experience. The integration of all the officers into one well-knit cadre with a well-recognised seniority, has, therefore, been presenting considerable difficulties.";