Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J. - (1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of his retirement dated March 16, 1994 Annexure-C to the writ petition by which the petitioner was retired from service of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (L. I .C. or Corporation, for short) with effect from that date on completion of the age of 58 years and odd days. On that day the petitioner was serving as a Class-1 category employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The petitioner's contention is that he, being a 'transferred employee', is entitled to retire on completion of 60 years of age under Clause (1) of Regulation 19 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (Staff Regulations, for short) whereas the case of the respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India is that the petitioner has to retire on completion of 58 years of age under Clause (2) of the said Regulation 19. The petitioner's contention is that initially he was appointed as an organiser on September 1, 1955 under the National Insurance Company Ltd. and thereafter obtained fresh appointment in the said National Insurance Company Ltd. as Inspector on and from January 1, 1956. His further contention is that with effect from September 1. 1956, when the Life Insurance Corporation of India was created under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. he was absorbed in the LIC as Field Officer/Development Officer, and accordingly as 'transferred employee' he is entitled to retire on completion of the age of 60 years under Regulation 19(1) of the said Staff Regulations. Regulation 3(L) defines 'transferred employee' as an employee of an insurer or of a chief Agent who was deemed to have become an employee of the L.I.C. on the 'Appointed Day' under Section 11 or under Section 12 of the L.I.C. Act. It may be mentioned here, the 'Appointed Day' was September 1, 1956. Section 11 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 inter alia provides that every whole-time employee of an insurer whose controlled business has been transferred to and vested in the L.I.C. and who was employed by the insurer wholly or mainly in connection with his controlled business, immediately before the appointed day, shall, on and from the Appointed Day become an employee of the Corporation. The respondents' contention is that the petitioner was not a whole-time employee of the National Insurance Company Ltd. and as such he cannot be a 'transferred employee.' Their further case is that although the petitioner was working as Field Officer/Development Officer on probation since the Appointed Day, that is, September 1, 1956 yet he could not fulfil the business targets given to him and as such he was not confirmed as Development Officer by the L.I.C. and was rather liable to be dismissed from service but on compassionate ground he was given an offer as to whether he was willing to work in the Administrative side of the L.I.C. as Class-III staff and the petitioner by his letter dated December 15, 1959 intimated that he was agreeable to accept the offer of absorption in the Administrative side and requested for such appointment and accordingly by letter dated March 30, 1960 the petitioner was appointed as a Class-III staff on the Administrative side of the L.I.C. by way of a new appointment as Assistant and he was subsequently promoted to Class-I category and as such he had to retire on completion of 58 years of age under Clause (2) of Regulation 19 inasmuch as his appointment as Assistant in 1960 was a new appointment and he was thus not a 'transferred employee'.
(2.) The contentions raised before me on behalf of the respondents thus revolve into two parts, namely, (1) whether the appointment of the petitioner in 1960 by the L.I.C. to the post of Assistant in Class-III constituted a new appointment so as to sever his earlier connection with the L.I.C. as Field Officer/Development Officer thereby rendering him liable to be governed by Clause (2) of Regulation 19 requiring retirement on completion of 58 years of age, and (2) whether he was a whole-time employee of the National Insurance Company Ltd. immediately before September 1, 1956.
(3.) There cannot be any dispute that at the relevant time in 1960 the petitioner was serving as a Development Officer which is a Class-II category of post under the L.I.C. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that since the petitioner was on probation as Development Officer and was never confirmed in that post he cannot claim a right to that post. The question whether the petitioner was on probation as Development Officer and whether he was never confirmed in that post is totally irrelevant in determining the question as to whether even as a probationary Development Officer the petitioner was an employee of the L.I.C. It is needless to say that probationary employee is also an employee of his employer. Regulation 5 of the Staff Regulations makes classification of the staff of the Corporation (that is, L.I.C.) into four categories. Development Officers constitute Class-II category. Regulation 14 provides for probation of persons appointed to posts of different classes. It is, therefore, evident that Development Officers are also employees of the Corporation and the mere fact that Development Officer is on probation does not deprive him of his status as an employee of the Corporation. Rather the question of placing a person under probationunder Regulation 14 arises only when such person has been appointed as an employee of the Corporation and not otherwise. It is the contention of the respondents that as the performance of the petitioner as Development Officer was not satisfactory he was liable to be dismissed but on compassionate ground he was offered appointment on the Administrative side of the Corporation and such appointment was an appointment de novo in the year 1960 under the Corporation and the question as to whether the petitioner should retire at the age of 58 years or 60 years has to be determined with reference to his date of such de novo appointment under the Corporation in 1960 in which case there cannot be any question of his getting any benefit as 'transferred employee' under Regulation 19(1).;