LexNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus GENERAL INSURANCE DEV. OFFICERS ASSON. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 1087
~~
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
A
If.
GENERAL INSURANCE DEV. OFFICERS ASSON. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2438 of 2008)
APRIL 3, 2008
B
,. ·t
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
General Insurance (Business Nationalization) Act, 1972
- ss. 16 (1) (g) and 17-A - Amendment of scheme for
Rationalization of Pay Scale and Other conditions of Service c
of Development Staff - Legality of - Held: Amendment is legal
- By virtue of introduction of s. 17-A Central Government was
empowered to amend the Scheme - However, the Officers
working within cost ratio not to be transferred unless required
in public interest - Policy regarding promotional prospects D
and wage revision to be finalized - Service Law - Service
' r
Conditions.
The question for consideration in the present appeals
and transfer cases is legality of General Insurance
(Rationalization of Pay Scales and Other Conditions of E
Service of Development Staff) Amendment scheme, 2003.
The Scheme purports to amend u/s 17-A of General
Insurance (Business Nationalization) Act, 1972, the earlier
Scheme framed uls 16 (1) (g) of the Act. The 2003 Scheme
was challenged by Development Officers on the ground
F
that the same was without power, jurisdiction and legal
sanctity; and that the change would cause the Officers
financial loss and inconvenience and this would also
result in termination of service.
Allowing the appeals and disposing of transfer G
cases, the Court
.
)
HELD: 1. By virtue of amendment of General
Insurance (Business Nationalization) Act, 1972 a new
1087
H
1088
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 5 S.C.R.
,_.,.
A Section 17-A was introduced in the Act and the Central
Government was empowered to amend the scheme under
Section 16 (1) (g) and the same was upheld by Supreme
Court. There is no scope for interference in these appeals.
However, it would be in the interests of the officers and
B the insurance companies, if the Development Officers who
work within the cost ratio are not transferred unless the
"
transfer is required to be done in public interest. So far as
t
the promotional prospects and the wage revision are
concerned, a draft policy stated to have been formulated
c for the latter, be finalized within a period of three months.
[Paras 19 and 21] [1095-G-H; 1107-A-C] ·
Kishan Prakash Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India and
Ors. 2001 (5) SCC 212 - followed.
D
Ajoy Kumar Banerjee and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
1984 (3) sec 127 - referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
i •
2438 of 2008.
E
From the final Judgment and Order dated 31.03.2003 of
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil
Writ Petition No. 3204 of 2003
WITH
F
Civil Appeal Nos. 2439, 2440, 2441, 2442, 2450, 2454,
2456, 2437, 2444-45, 2446-47, 2448-49, 2453, 2451, 2452,
2455 of 2008, T.C. (C) No. 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 73 and 2004, 42
r
of 2005 and 47 of 2005.
Vikas Singh, A.S.G., Ranjit Kumar, L.N. Rao, Mahabir
G Singh, R.C. Mishra, Dr. Meera Agarwal, Dinesh Mathur, H.K.
Puri, S.C. Dhand, V.M. Chauhan, S.K. Puri, Priya Puri, R.
Santhan Krishnan, K. Radha Rani, P. Vijaya Kumar, Praveen K.
Pandey, D. Mahesh Babu, Sunil Kumar Jain. S. Borthakur, Ajay
K. Bhatia, Manish Pitale, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Sunita
{
~
H Sharma, Sushma Suri, Romy Chacko, Arpit Gupta, Dinesh
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. GENERAL INS.
1089
DEV. OFFICERS ASSON. & ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]
Verma and A.P. Mohanty for the appearing parties.
A
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are taken up alongwith Transfer Case
(Civil) Nos.60-64/2004, 73/2004, 42/2005 and 47/2005.
3. In all these cases the basic issue is the legality of General
B
Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and Other Conditions
of Service of Development Staff) Amendment Scheme, 2003
(in short '2003 Scheme').
4. The present scheme -purports to amend the earlier c
scheme framed under Section 17 A of the General Insurance
(Business Nationalization). Act, 1972 (in short the 'Act'). The
principal scheme was framed in 1976 in exercise of powers
under Section 16( 1 )(g) of the Act. The scheme was amended
earlier in the years 1987, 1990 and 1996 and 2000. The D
principal sch em~ of 1976 was challenged but the challenge was
r
turned down and legality of the scheme was upheld by this Court.
Several writ petitions have been filed by Development Officers
questioning legality of the scheme on the groundExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.