LIC Staff Regulations | Expression 'Lower' Than Existing Pay Scale Wide Enough To Punish Employee To Minimum/Lowest Scale: MP High Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently clarified that the expression 'lower' grade/post in Clause 39(1)(d) of LIC (Staff Regulations, 1960) also encompasses punishment to the 'lowest'/'minimum' grade or post.The division bench comprising Justices Sujoy Paul and Vivek Jain also held that the regulation makers did not intend to give a restrictive meaning to this enabling provision. “…had...
Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently clarified that the expression 'lower' grade/post in Clause 39(1)(d) of LIC (Staff Regulations, 1960) also encompasses punishment to the 'lowest'/'minimum' grade or post.
The division bench comprising Justices Sujoy Paul and Vivek Jain also held that the regulation makers did not intend to give a restrictive meaning to this enabling provision.
“…had it been the intention of regulation makers to restrict the punishment only to lower grade/post and not to the minimum/lowest grade, they would have clearly provided so by employing necessary words in the regulation. We are unable to give such restrictive meaning to the language employed in Regulation 39(1)(d). The punishment imposed, in our considered judgment falls within the four corners of enabling Regulation 39(1)(d)”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur noted.
To reach such a conclusion, the court discussed the findings of the MP High Court regarding the ambit of Regulation 30 (c) of Kshetriya Gramin Bank's Staff Service Regulations, 1980, rendered in Gurudayal Gupta v. Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chhindwara & Ors.. In this case, the court observed that 'a lower stage in the incremental scale' can only mean any one of the lower stages in the incremental scale, including the lowest, and that is the only meaning that can be assigned to the rule.
The penalty envisaged under Regulation 39(1)(d) of LIC Staff Regulations is as follows:-
"Regulation 39 (1)(d) - reduction to a lower service, or post, or to a lower time scale, or to a lower stage in a time-scale."
While allowing the intra-court writ appeal filed by LIC against its employee, Yashwanth Singh, the division bench opined that the single-judge bench's interpretation of Regulation 39(1)(d) was not in accordance with the law. As a result of LIC's disciplinary proceedings back in 2016, the delinquent employee's pay was reduced to the minimum in the time scale of pay applicable to his cadre.
Later, the single-judge bench had allowed the writ petition preferred by Mr. Singh and noted that punishment to the 'minimum' grade or post is not prescribed as a penalty in Regulation 39(1) (d). The writ court had then added that the 'lower' stage of scale cannot be equivalent to the 'lowest' stage of scale. The single bench had then relied on Vijay Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2012) 5 SCC 242 to arrive at that conclusion.
Before the Division Bench, the primary question that arose was whether the term 'lower' than the existing scale can also be treated as inclusive of the term 'minimum' of the existing scale if tested on the anvil of Regulation 39(1) (d) of Staff Regulations.
After citing the Delhi High Court's order in S.C. Singh vs. Union of India & Anr. (2011) and MP High Court's aforementioned decision in Gurudayal Gupta, the Division Bench concurred with the observations that the penalty of reduction to a lower time scale or pay can't be restricted by one grade alone.
Advocate N.S Ruprah appeared for the appellant LIC and its cohorts. Senior Advocate Shobha Menon, along with Advocate Rahul Choubey, represented the employee respondent.
Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation of India, Through Its Chairman & Ors. v. Yeshwant Singh Garewal
Case No: Writ Appeal No.1652 of 2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 32