- (1.) There are two parts to this petition: a facile challenge without much passion as to the applicability of the 2009 Rules pertaining to development officers in the Life Insurance Corporation; and, the termination of the petitioner's services.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a development officer by LIC on July 14, 2012. The letter clearly stipulated that the petitioner would be governed by the "Life Insurance Corporation Of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 now in force as may be amended from time to time and as per the provisions of Life Insurance Corporation Of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms & Conditions Of Service) Rules, 1989 as amended from time to time". The petitioner was served a notice on June 24, 2014 that the petitioner's cost ratio for the appraisal year was 107.97% and that the petitioner's annual remuneration for the appraisal year exceeded 38% of the eligible premium for the year. The petitioner was also informed that the figures for the preceding year were equally discouraging. The said notice was issued under Rule 6(8) read with Rule 7 of the Life Insurance Corporation Of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009.
(3.) The petitioner responded to the notice by issuing a reply that was received by the employer on July 14, 2014. In the second paragraph of the reply, the petitioner alleged that the letter of appointment issued to the petitioner did not indicate that the petitioner's services were liable to be terminated on the basis of non-performance or failure to achieve of the cost ratio as indicated in the show-cause notice. The petitioner also argued that if the petitioner had been made acquainted with the said Rules of 2009, "I would never apply for the post and never join in the post " As to his performance, the petitioner cited reasons that ranged from the change of syllabus for recruiting agents to the Panchayat election and floods in the petitioner's field area. It is of some solace that solar flares were not blamed for the petitioner not being able to achieve his targets. The petitioner also referred to his perceived illness and his visit to a hospital for a check-up. A copy of a prescription has been appended to the petition where the two major medicines prescribed were Librium and Pantocid and, on the petitioner's representation that he suffered from arrythmia, he was advised to avoid riding bicycles and motorcycles.;