Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 574 (KAR)

Branch Manager, LIC of India v. K. Maheshwarappa

2008-10-03

V.JAGANNATHAN

body2008
Judgment :- Jagannathan, J. The Branch Manager, LIC of India has preferred this appeal calling in question the judgment of the lower appellate Court by which the dismissal of the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was set aside and the suit was decreed and permanent injunction was granted restraining the Branch Manager, LIC and the Divisional Manager, LIC from recovering the rural incentive bonus paid to the respondent/plaintiff for the period from September, 1994 to August, 1997. Aggrieved by the reversal of the trial Courts judgment by the lower appellate Court, the first defendant Branch Manager has come up in this second appeal. 2. Thefacts briefly are that the respondent/plaintiff was working as a Development Officer of the LIC of India at its branch at Chitradurga and as per the Incentive Bonus Scheme 1997 (`the scheme 1997 for short), the Development Officer was paid 10% of the basic incentive bonus in accordance with the aforesaid scheme and subsequently, during audit which was conducted, an objection was raised for having paid incentive bonus to the respondent/plaintiff and following this observation, the plaintiff was issued a notice as to why the incentive bonus paid to him should not be recovered from him. This prompted the plaintiff to approach the trial Court for an order of injunction against the defendants from recovering the incentive bonus paid to him. 3. The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and in doing so, the trial Court held that as the plaintiff was also working as Divisional Officer at a place where the population exceeded one lakh, the plaintiff is not eligible for the aforesaid bonus benefit. In arriving at this conclusion, the trial Court also recorded its finding that as per the Census Report of 1991, Chitradurga Urban Agglomeration consists of three places namely Chitradurga, Kelagote and Medehalli villages and as the total population of all these three places put together exceeded one lakh, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff was not eligible for the incentive bonus. 4. On appeal by the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court and in doing so, the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court opined that the plaintiff was appointed as Development Officer to work at Chitradurga and the said town included Kelagote area but not Medehalli village. "Therefore, Medehalli village was removed from consideration. 4. On appeal by the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court and in doing so, the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court opined that the plaintiff was appointed as Development Officer to work at Chitradurga and the said town included Kelagote area but not Medehalli village. "Therefore, Medehalli village was removed from consideration. The total population of the remaining two places namely Chitradurga and Kelagote fell below one lakh population mark. Therefore, the lower appellate Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff by reversing the judgment of the trial Court. The first defendant Branch Manager, LIC has therefore appealed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel Sri. S.M. Gajendran for the appellants and the learned Counsel Sri. P. Mahesha for the respondent. 6. "This Court at the time of admitting this appeal has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration: "Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in ignoring Ex.D1, the Census of India, 1991 Report Chitradurga Urban Agglomeration includes (1) Chitradrga (CMC), (2) Kelagote (OG), (3) Medehalli (OG) as indicate in Provisional Population totals -CENSUS OF INDIA, 1991 and holding that the population was less than one lakh?" 7. Learned Counsel Sri. S.M. Gajendran for the appellants firmly contended that the population of the places where the plaintiff was working as Divisional Officer exceeded one lakh which is evident from Ex.D1 the Census of India, 1991 report. It is his submission that the respondent was working in an urban area which comprised of Chitradurga (CMC), Kelagote(OG) and Medehalli (OG) and as the population of the said three places in the order being 87,053, 10,621 and 5,671 respectively, the total will be more than a lakh population. It is his submission that the respondent was working in an urban area which comprised of Chitradurga (CMC), Kelagote(OG) and Medehalli (OG) and as the population of the said three places in the order being 87,053, 10,621 and 5,671 respectively, the total will be more than a lakh population. Therefore, by referring to the definition of the `Rural Agents as contained in Section 3(g) of the Incentive Bonus Scheme 1997, it is argued that as the population of the three places was more than a lakh, the agents working under the Development Officer cannot be called as rural agents and therefore the lower appellate Court was in error in reversing the judgment of the trial Court and it did not refer to the provision of the Incentive Bonus Scheme as well as the LIC Staff Regulations, 1960 and to the LIC (Agents) Regulation, 1972, and hence the Counsel submitted that the respondent/plaintiff was working in Chitradurga urban area and therefore he is ineligible for incentive bonus of 10%. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel Sri.P.Mahesha for the respondent/plaintiff supported the judgment of the lower appellate Court and submitted that the respondent was appointed as Development Officer only in the place "Chitradurga" which only comprised of Chitradurga town and Kelagote, but did not include Medehalli village. Therefore, if Medehalli is taken out from the purview, then the total population of the place where the respondent was working was less than one lakh and as such, the agents who were working under the respondent come within the definition of rural agents. Hence the respondent is entitled to 10% basic incentive bonus in accordance with Section 6 (2) of the Scheme, 1997. As far as the population indicated in the census report is concerned, the submission made is that the said population of a lakh and above is in respect of a wider area of population, which is called by expression "Chitradurga Urban Agglomeration". Therefore, no fault can be found with the view taken by the lower appellate Court and as such the second appeal lacks merit. 9. Having thus heard the learned Counsel for the parties and taking into account the question of law that is framed by this Court, the entire controversy rests around the question concerning the population of the place where the respondent was working as Development Officer. 9. Having thus heard the learned Counsel for the parties and taking into account the question of law that is framed by this Court, the entire controversy rests around the question concerning the population of the place where the respondent was working as Development Officer. I f it is proved, from the evidence on record and the documents and other reports, regulations, referred to by the learned Counsel for the appellants, that the respondent was in fact working in an area which had more than a lakh population, he becomes ineligible for the incentive bonus. This question in turn depends upon the further question, as to what was the work area in which the respondent was assigned the work of Development Officer of the LIC. 10. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that in view of the Census of India Report, 1991 produced as per Ex.D1, the total population of the Chitradurga Urban Agglomeration exceeds one lakh and therefore, the lower appellate Court was not justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. The Chitradurga Urban Agglomeration has been the expression used in the census report to cover the areas of (1) Chitradurga (CMC), (2) Kelagote(OG), (3)Medehalli (OG). All the places have been classified as Urban in the census report at page No.77 and the population of all the three places to which I have already referred, taken together, exceeds one lakh. But the contention of the respondent/plaintiff is that he was appointed as Development Officer to work only at Chitradurga. This stand of the respondent is also supported by the documents produced before the trial Court as per Ex.PI. The said Ex.PI needs to be mentioned at this juncture and it reads as under: TO WHOSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN DATE: 211.2000 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT SRI. K.MAHESIIWARAPPA IS WORKING AS A DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AT LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, CHITRADURGA SINCE 38.1974 AND IS A RESIDENT OF CHITRADURGA. Sd/- BRANCH MANAGER 11. It is therefore clear from the above letter issued by the Branch Manager of the LIC of India, Chitradurga Branch that the respondent was working as a Development Officer at Chitradurga. The said letter does not mention that this area of operation cover all the three places which have been brought under the common heading namely "Chitradurga Urban Agglomeration". It is therefore clear from the above letter issued by the Branch Manager of the LIC of India, Chitradurga Branch that the respondent was working as a Development Officer at Chitradurga. The said letter does not mention that this area of operation cover all the three places which have been brought under the common heading namely "Chitradurga Urban Agglomeration". Excepting Ex.P 1, there is no other document produced by either side to show that the area of population of the plaintiff cover not only Chitradurga (CMC), but also Kelagote and Medehalli. In the absence of there being evidence placed by either side in this regard, it is not permissible to take the view that the place namely Chitradurga also means and implies working in a larger area which is mentioned as `Chitradurga Urban Agglomeration in the census report. In other words, there is no material placed to show that Medehalli also formed part of the place of working of the plaintiff. Having regard to the above facts to which learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance and as contended by him, if Medehalli is left out of consideration, leaving only Chitradurga (CMC) and Kelagote(OG), the total population of these two places will not be one lakh, but less than that. 12. Once it is accepted that the population of the place where the respondent was working was less than a lakh, after leaving out Medehalli village, the question for consideration will be whether the respondent will still to be eligible for the incentive bonus. The answer to this is furnished by the Incentive Scheme, 1997 which is marked at Ex.D2 and the relevant provisions arc Section 3(g) which defines `rural agent and Section 6(2) which provide for the 10% basic incentive bonus to a Development Officer and they are as under:- Section 3(g) "rural agent means an agent in the organization of a Development Officer working in a place with an ascertained population of less than 1 lakh and who is required to bring in the minimum amount of business in his agency year, as specified in clause (c) of sub-rule (1) and (2) Rule 9 of LIC of India (Agents) Rules, 1972, as amended from time to time; 6. Formula for modifying the quantum of Basic Incentive Bonus: (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (1) above, in respect of a Development officer whose entire agency organization in the relevant appraisal year consists of only "rural agents" and/or agents working only in a "hill station", an extra Incentive Bonus may be allowed at the rate of 10% of the Basic Incentive Bonus determined as per formula prescribed in clause 5 of the scheme. 13. Reading together the above two provisions it becomes clear that in order to entitle the Development Officer to 10% basic incentive bonus, it will have to be shown that the entire agency organization of the Development Officer for the relief appraisal year consisted only of a (Rural agents). Section 3(g) throws light on the definition of rural agent and it is clear from the said definition referred to above, that an agent working in the organization of Development Officer working in a place with ascertained population of less than one lakh comes under the definition of `rural agent. Applying these two provisions to the case on hand and in the light of appointment order issued to the Development Officer mentioning only Chitradurga as place of working, and there being no scope to add Medehalli village into a place working of the Development Officer, the lower appellate Court has therefore rightly held that the population of the place where the plaintiff was working was less than a lakh. As such, the respondent becomes eligible for the incentive bonus. The said conclusion reached by the lower appellate Court cannot be termed as perverse or contrary to the evidence on record and it cannot be said that the lower appellate Court has misread the evidence and all relevant provisions. 14. Even the Staff Regulation, 1960 which is placed for my perusal as well as the Agents Regulations, 1972, by the learned Counsel for the appellants also gives an indication that the operation area of Development Officer could be any one of the three places mentioned in Schedule- III of Section 1(k). The said provision indicates that the operation area of Development Officer, could be a city, urban agglomeration or town. 15. The said provision indicates that the operation area of Development Officer, could be a city, urban agglomeration or town. 15. Therefore, applying the said provision also to the case on hand and in the absence of the appellants placing any evidence before the trial Court that the place of working of the respondent namely Chitradurga is to be deemed as Chitradurga Urban Agglomeration, there is no scope for reading into the expression `Chitradurga, something the appointment order did not expressly provide for. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the lower appellate Court has committed no error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff by reversing the judgment of the trial Court and accordingly, the question of law is answered. 16. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the appellants made a submission that in the event of excess payment having been made to the respondent/plaintiff, the LIC be given the liberty to recover the incentive bonus. This submission has not been seriously countered by the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. Moreover, it is needless to say that if any excess is paid by the LIC to the Development Officer over and above what he is in law entitled, the liberty is always there for an employer to recover the excess. This observation, therefore, will be suffice to meet the above prayer of the learned Counsel for the appellants. 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.