Ram Nandan Mukhia v. The L.I.C.Of India And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 15817 of 2005 ====================================================== Ram Nandan Mukhia, son of late Ram Swaroop Mukhia, resident of Village - Bhaluahi, Post - Janardanpur, PS - Marouna, District - Supaul. Presently working as Higher Grade Assistant, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch office at Madhubani Khadi Gramodyoga Bhawan, Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1 The Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, Yogakshrma Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai - 400 021 2 Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Eastern Zonal Office, Hindustan Building 4th Chitranjan Avenue, Calcutta - 700 072 3 Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeevan Prakash, Umashankar Prasad Marg, Muzaffarpur - 842 002 4 Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Madhubani Branch, Madhubani, Khadi Gramodyog Bhawan, Madhubani ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== For the Petitioner/s :
Mr Mukesh Pd Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
M/s Rakesh Kr, Abhimanyu Vatsa, Rajnikant Singh & Ms Priti Jaiswal, Advocates ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 18-10-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.
2 Counsels are in agreement that the issue, whether late refund of amount of Leave Travel Concession (for brevity, LTC) advance would not constitute a misconduct, now stands settled as per decision of this Court in the proceedings arising out of CWJC No 12086 of 2009 (Ganga Safi -Versus- Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others) as well as decision of the Division
Patna High Court CWJC No.15817 of 2005 dt.18-10-2019 2/3 Bench in LPA No 1275 of 2012 (Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others -Versus- Praful Chandra Jha). The employee, at best, would be liable for refund of the amounts as per the procedure prescribed under the LTC Rules, 1994 of respondentCorporation. 3 Having regard to the admitted position, based on precedents referred to by the learned counsels, the penalty, under order dated 27.07.2002 passed by respondent No 3, Senior Divisional Manager is unsustainable as the same is in a proceeding wherein petitioner has been alleged to have delayed in refund of LTC advance.
4 The order of punishment is, therefore, quashed. The order of the Appellate Authority dated 15.07.2003 rejecting the petitioner's appeal against the order of punishment dated 27.07.2002 affirming the order of punishment is also unsustainable for the same reason. The order passed on the Memorial by the Chairman dated 09.07.2004, whereby the punishment has been upheld, is also quashed.
5 Writ petition is allowed.
6 The petitioner, as a result, would be entitled to all consequential benefits which would be subject to the decision of
Patna High Court CWJC No.15817 of 2005 dt.18-10-2019 3/3 the Authorities as emanating from the LTC Rules of 1994 considered hereinabove.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 22.10.2019 Transmission Date NA