- (1.) Himangshu Kumar Chakraborty and 10 others for selves and in their representative capacity filed a writ petition out of which these two appeals arise. They described themselves as Development Officers of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and further claimed that they were members of the National Federation of Insurance Field Workers of India. A learned single Judge was pleased to issue Civil Rule No. 9465 (W) of 1976. In their said writ petition, Himangshu Kumar Chakraborty and others, inter alia, prayed for quashing and/or cancelling the Order No. GSR-290 dated 8th April, 1976 issued by the Government of India in exercise of their powers under S. 11 (2) of Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 . The said order dated 8th April, 1976 was called the Life Insurance Corporation Development Officers (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1976 (hereinafter briefly called the Order of 1976). They also prayed for quashing and/or cancelling the Notification 65 (24)-INS,III/7/74 dated 21st April, 1976 issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The Life Insurance Corporation thereby amended the Life Insurance Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1960 and made the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Fifth Amendment Regulations. 1976 (hereinafter called the Staff Regulations, 1976). His Lordship Mr. Justice T. K. Basu by his judgment dated Jan. 13, 1977 has struck down the aforesaid Order under Section 11 (2) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 195-6 dated 8th April, 1976 on the ground that the same is discriminatory. His Lordship has issued a mandate directing the respondents to withdraw, cancel and forbear from giving effect to the said Order dated 8th April, 1976. By the same judgment, the learned Judge has rejected the submission of the petitioners of the Civil Rule in respect of the Life Insurance Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1976 published on 21st April, 1976 and has accordingly discharged the Rule in respect of the said Staff Regulations, 1976. The petitioners in Civil Rule No. 9468 (W) of 1976: (reported in 1977 Lab IC 622), being aggrieved, have preferred F. M. A. No. 376 of 1977. The Union of India has also preferred F. M. A. No. III of 1978 against the said judgment of T. K. Basu, J. striking down the Order under S. 11 (2) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act dated 8th April, 1976.
(2.) During the pendency of these two appeals, two important events have taken place. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s. (2) of S. 11 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 , the Central Government has made the Life Insurance Corporation Development Officers (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1978. The said Order dated 19th Dec, 1978 under S. 11 (2) of the Act applies to terms and conditions of service of "transferred employees" and the previous Order of 1976 under S. 11 (2) of the Act now stands superseded. With the previous approval of the Central Government, the Life Insurance Corporation of India has amended the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 by making Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Sixth Amendment Regulations, 1978. The Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Fifth Regulations, 1976 now stands repealed. On 16th Jan., 1979 the appellants in F. M. A. No. 376 of 1977 made an application for permitting the said amendments to the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations of 1978 to be brought on record so that the validity thereof may be examined. The appellants in F. M. A.376 of .1977 have not however, made any such prayer in respect of the Life Insurance Corporation Developmment Officers (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1978 also published on 19th Dec, 1978. In fact, their aforesaid application does not even mention about the making of the aforesaid Order of 1978 under S. 11 (2) of the Act. The above application filed on 16th Jan., 1979 should be rejected. The said application has not been made for formally amending the writ petition in the above Civil Rule. No averment has been made therein as to why the said Staff Regulations, 1978 is invalid. Not a single additional ground has been set forth. The appellants have not even applied that the said Staff Regulations of 1978 should be quashed. We have already mentioned the said application dated 16th Jan., 1979 makes no reference whatsoever to the Order of 1978 under S. 11 (2) of the Act made by the Government of India. Undoubtedly, the Court may take notice of subsequent events to shorten the course of litigation or in order to do complete justice between the parties. We have already stated that the petitioners of the Civil Rule have not pleaded in their said application why the aforesaid Regulations of 1978 are invalid. The Life Insurance Corporation of India and the Government of India had no opportunity to produce materials in support of their case that the said Order of 1978 and the said Regulations of 1978 were intra vires. Therefore, we are unable to examine the validity of both the Regulations of 1978 and the Order of 1978. In fact, Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Advocate for the appellants in F. M. A. No. 376 of 1977, in course of his submission did not make any submission about the validity of the different provisions of the said Order of 1978 and the Staff Regulations of 1978. Therefore, we reject t'he said application filed on 16th Jan., 1979 and keep open all claims and contentions in respect of the said subsequent Order and the Staff Regulations published in the year 1978.
(3.) The Order under S. 11 (2) of the Act dated 8th April, 1976 which has been struck down by T. K. Basu, J. in his judgment delivered in the above Civil Rule has been now substituted by a fresh order under S. 11 (2) of the Act. Therefore, strictly speaking, it is no longer necessary to issue a mandate upon the respondents of the Civil Rule commanding them not to enforce the said order dated 8th April, 1976. However, this Court may still consider whether any declaratory relief should be granted in respect of the order dated 8th April, 1976, and the Staff Regulations of 1976 both of which are no longer in force. No other effective relief can be granted to the petitioners of the Civil Rule until and unless they can successfully impugn the subsequent order of 1978 and the Staff Regulations of 1978. There is no substance . in the submission of Mr. Chatterjee that after making of the fresh order under S. 11 (2) of the Act, F. M. A. III of 1978 preferred by the Union of India against the above judgment of T. K. Basu, J. has become infructuous. Mr. Chatterjee's clients who were petitioners in the Civil Rule have not prayed for withdrawing their writ petition with liberty to file a fresh one incorporating therein challenge against the new oder and the new Staff Regulations of 1978. The judgment of T. K. Basu, J. under appeal unless set aside would stand. Therefore, the appellants in F. M. A. III of 1978 are certainly entitled to maintain their appeal and to make submissions against the decision of T. K. Basu, J. holding the previous order under Section 11 (2) dated 8th April, 1976 to be discriminatory. The Union of India being aggrieved by the said adverse judgment is entitled to maintain its appeal notwithstanding making of a fresh order under S. 11 (2) and new Regulation under S. 49 (1).;