WP/11883/2020 of K.Tamilselvi Vs The Life Insurance Corporation of India
WP No. 11883 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 07.04.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 10.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WP No. 11883 of 2020
K.Tamilselvi
Petitioner
Vs
1. The Life Insurance Corporation of India
rep by the Zonal Manager, LIC Building,
153, Anna Salai, Chennai-02
2.The Life Insurance Corporation of India
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg,
Mumbai - 400 021.
Respondents
PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the order of termination dated 18.12.2017 passed by the 1st
respondent and confirmed in the appeal order dated 19.03.2020 passed by the
2nd respondent under the Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant benefits.
For Petitioner: Mr.C.A.Ramanan for
Mr.N.Manoharan
For Respondents: Mr.R.S.Anandan,
Standing Counsel
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11883 of 2020
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the record.
2. The petitioner by the present writ petition, has assailed the action of the
respondents i.e., the 1 st respondent in issuing the order of termination dated
18.12.2017 and that of the 2 nd respondent dated 19.03.2020 whereby the appeal
preferred by her against the order of termination, was dismissed.
3. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Apprentice
Developmental Officer 15.11.2010 in the office of the Branch Manager,
Tiruppathur LIC Branch Office, Tiruppathur, of the respondents; that after initial
training, she was posted as Probationary Development Officer with effect from
31.05.2011; that on successful completion of probation, her service was
confirmed with effect from 01.06.2012 as per the proceedings dated 31.05.2012
issued by the Senior Divisional manager, LIC, Vellore.
4. It is the further contention of the petitioner that on her service being
confirmed as Developmental Officer, during the first Appraisal Year Ending –
2012, she had achieved premium income of Rs.12,46,816/-; that during the next
Appraisal Year Ending – 2013, despite 21 agents from and out of 40 agents who
2/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11883 of 2020
were under her, getting terminated for non-fulfilment of the Minimum Business
Guarantee (MBG) condition, she achieved the target of collecting the premium
income of Rs.14,19,624/-; and that the collection of the premium incomes
during both Appraisal Years were within the prescribed limit of cost Ratio.
5. The petitioner further contended that during the third Appraisal Year
Ending – 2014, on account of various factors like change in IRDA syllabus for
the examination conducted for appointment of agents, non availability of books
in Regional language, withdrawal of various popular schemes by the
respondents and also introduction of the service tax and educational cess on the
new plans introduced by the respondents, the newly appointed agents were not
able to convince the customers, due to which, her performance was affected and
despite the same she could collect annual premium income to an extent of
Rs.9,15,420/-; and that the aforesaid collection of the premium by her, was also
within Cost Ratio norms prescribed by the respondents.
6. The petitioner also contended that during the Appraisal Year Ending –
2015, she had availed and was granted maternity leave during the period
09.06.2014 to 08.12.2014 i.e., for a period of six months and due to her
pregnancy and related issues, she was not in a position to travel for long
distances and follow up with the agents to achieve the targets by selling policies
3/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11883 of 2020
of the respondents; that on account of being on maternity leave the premium
income collection, had fallen drastically; and that 17 of her agents were
terminated by the respondents which also had an impact on her performance
during the Appraisal year – 2015.
7. It is the further case of the petitioner that while she had joined duty on
expiry of the maternity leave period, as she had to take care of the new born
baby, she was unable to travel for longer duration and distances in the remaining
period of the Appraisal year, i.e, from December 2014 to 31.05.2015 to achieve
the target of collection of premium income.
8. The petitioner also contended that while she was preparing herself to
carry forward the duties in the next Appraisal year, commencing from
01.06.2015, the respondents without taking note of the fact of she being on
maternity leave and having attained motherhood on 14.07.2014, issued notice
dated 20.06.2015, calling upon her to show cause as to why her services should
not be terminated in pursuance to Rule 7 of the Life Insurance Corporation of
India (Revision of certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 (in
short Service Rules, 2009); that she had submitted her reply dated 08.07.2015
and explained the factual position for not achieving the required premium
income collection during the Appraisal year - 2015.
4/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11883 of 2020
9. The petitioner further contended that the reply submitted by her to the
Senior Divisional Manager was forwarded to the 1st respondent for
consideration; that the 1st respondent thereafter issued second Show Cause
Notice, dated 20.08.2015, calling upon her to show cause and explain within 30
days from the date of receipt of the said notice as to why her services should not
be terminated in pursuance to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 6 r/w. Rule 7 of Service
Rules, 2009 as her cost ratio for the Appraisal Year - 2015 was 115.91%, while
permitted maximum is 38%; that the first respondent while issuing the aforesaid
show cause notice, did not consider the explanation submitted by her to the
Senior Divisional Manager offering explanation and reasons for not achieving
the premium income collection during the Appraisal year - 2015; and that
issuance of the show cause notice by the first respondent is also against the
public policy and contrary to the provisions of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (in
short Act, 1961) under which working women is entitled for being granted
certain benefits.
10. It is the further case of the petitioner that as the show cause notice
issued by the 1 st respondent is opposed the public policy and the provisions of
the Act, 1961, she had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.28616 of 2015
seeking to quash the show cause notices dated 20.06.2015 and 20.08.2015; that
this Court was pleased to grant an interim order of status quo on 11.09.2015;
5/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11883 of 2020
that subsequently, this Court taking note of the submission made by the
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Corporation that the
order under challenge be treated as withdrawn in view of the Judgment of the
Kerala High Court in W.A.No.2006 of 2014 (Life Insurance Corporation of
India and Anr. Vs. Sonia Bhaskar and anr.) disposed of the said writ petition
filed by her on 30.03.2016, and granted liberty to the respondents to pass fresh
orders after giving opportunity to the petitioner.
11. The petitioner contended that the 1st respondent however without
taking note of the fact that she was on maternity leave for a period of six months
which was duly sanctioned by the respondents, had once again issued show
cause notice dated 27.01.2017, inter alia reiterating the contents of earlier show
cause notice dated 20.08.2015, claiming that her annual remuneration for the
Appraisal year - 2015 exceeds 38% of the eligible premium income collection
of the year and directed her to appear before the 1 st respondent for personal
hearing on 27.02.2017; and that the 1 st respondent merely relying on the Rules
without taking into consideration the circumstances in which the petitioner
could not achieve the premium income collection, was determined to terminate
her service by invoking Rule 7 of the Service Rules, 2009 in issuing the
aforesaid show cause notice, dated 27.01.2017, she had approached this Court
by filing W.P.No.3722 of 2017; that this Court by order dated 15.09.2017
6/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11883 of 2020
disposed of the writ petition; that aggrieved by the aforesaid order of this Court
in W.P.No.3722 of 2017, she had filed Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1582 of 2017;
that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court taking note of the fact that the
challenge is to the show cause notice, was pleased to dispose of the Writ Appeal
vide its order dated 04.12.2017, and permitted her to submit explanation raising
the contention of she having availed maternity leave for 6 months at the relevant
point of time and directed the respondents to consider the aforesaid plea taken
by her along with supporting material positively; that even before the aforesaid
order of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1582 of 2017 was made
ready and delivered, the 1st respondent proceeded to pass an order dated
18.12.2017, terminating her service from the post of Developmental Officer
without considering the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court, to
consider her explanation with regard to maternity leave for a period of 6 months
at the relevant point of time, as one of the reason for not achieving the annual
premium collection income; and that the aforesaid action of the 1 st respondent
clearly shows the predetermined approach to dispense with her services.
12. It is the further case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the aforesaid
order of the 1 st respondent, she had filed a Writ Petition before this Court in
W.P.No.91 of 2019; that this Court by an order dated 07.03.2019, taking note of
the fact that the Service Rules, 2009, provides for an appeal, directed the
7/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11883 of 2020
petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent by way of an appeal; that she had filed
an appeal immediately thereafter on 13.03.2019 under Rule 7 (2) of the Special
Rule, 2009; that the 2 nd respondent dismissed the said appeal vide order dated
19.03.2020 and confirmed the order of the 1st respondent; and that the 2nd
respondent while dismissing the appeal, did not pass a speaking order nor assign
any valid reason, for not accepting the submission putforth by the petitioner.
13. It is the further case of the petitioner that though the 2 nd respondent in
the impugned order made a reference to her continuation in service
subsequently, however did not take into consideration her subsequent
performance, and passed his order claiming that her performance during the
subsequent Appraisal year was also not satisfactory. Contending as above, the
petitioner seeks for setting aside the order of the 1st respondent dated 18.12.2017
as confirmed by the 2nd respondent vide order dated 19.03.2020.
14. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance is placed on the
following decisions:
i.Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.S.Ravindran Vs. Branch
Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 222;
ii.Order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1639 of 2017,
dated 08.12.2017;
8/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11883 of 2020
iii.decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation
of India and Ors., Vs.Sonia Bhaskar and Ors. reported in
Manu/KE/1379/2015;
iv. Order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P .No.27556 of 2018,
dated 18.10.2024.
15. Counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents, is filed.
16. The respondents by the counter affidavit contended that the Service
Rules, 2009 were notified by the Government of India on 12.11.2009; that every
confirmed Development Officer has to perform within the framework of these
Rules; that as per the Service Rules, 2009, the petitioners attracted disincentives
and got terminated as per Sub-Rule (8) of Rule 6 r/w. Rule (7) of Service Rules,
2009; and that the aforesaid Rules are applicable to all the confirmed
Development Officers.
17. The respondents by the counter affidavit further contended that during
the Appraisal year - 2015, the petitioner was expected to bring Rs.15,78,721/- as
Premium Income Collection; that against the aforesaid income to be secured,
the petitioner had secured the amount of Rs.2.86 lakhs only as premium income,
which clearly shows that the petitioner did not discharge the duties during the
9/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11883 of 2020
Appraisal Year - 2015; that on account of the petitioner not being able to collect
the required premium income, cost ratio exceeded 38% as permitted under the
Rules; thus, the explanation, dated 08.07.2015 submitted by the petitioner to the
Senior Divisional Manager, was found not acceptable, and was accordingly
forwarded to the Zonal Manager for taking further action; and that the 1st
respondent thereafter issued the second show cause notice dated 20.08.2015 to
the petitioner.
18. The respondents by the counter affidavit also contended that the
duties of the Developmental Officer are clearly delineated in the appointment
order dated 31.05.2011 which was accepted by the petitioner and thus, the
petitioner cannot take shelter of not being able to discharge the duties because
of her maternity leave.
19. The respondents by the counter affidavit further contended that after
this Court disposing of the Writ Petition in W.P.No.28616 of 2015 vide order
dated 06.09.2015, the petitioner was called for personal hearing on 18.12.2017
and during the personal hearing as the petitioner did not state any new facts
other than what was stated by her in her reply to the show cause notice, the 1 st
respondent considered the same and taken a decision to terminate her service as
per provisions and Rules.
10/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11883 of 2020
20. The respondents by the counter affidavit further contended that since,
the petitioner has been appointed as the Development Officer, it is the duty of
the petitioner to appoint agents in order to sell policies of the respondents and
generate income by guiding, supervising, channelizing and motivating the
activities of the agents under her control; that the petitioner having failed
miserably in her duties, is only trying to take shelter on the ground of her
maternity leave during the Appraisal year, for not achieving the premium
income collection; that, the 1 st respondent considering the overall performance
of the petitioner had terminated her service, as per the Rules and Regulations;
and that the termination is only simplicitor and is not by way of punishment.
21. On behalf of the respondents, it is also contended that the petitioner’s
performance even during the previous year i.e., Appraisal Year - 2014, was not
up to the mark; that the respondents considering her over all performance of the
Appraisal Years 2014 and 2015, have initiated action to terminate her service
and as such the order of the 1 st respondent as confirmed by the 2 nd respondent
impugned in the present writ petition, does not call for any interference.
Contending as above, the respondents seek for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
22. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.
11/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11883 of 2020
23. At the outset, it is to be noted that though the respondents had claimed
that the petitioner’s performance during the Appraisal Year - 2014 was also not
up to the mark, and the said fact has also been considered while issuing show
cause notice. On two occasions, it is to be noted that in the Show Cause notice
issued, initially by the Senior Divisional Manager and thereafter by the 1st
respondent, there is no mention of non satisfactory performance of the petitioner
during the Appraisal Year - 2014. Further, the premium income collection by
the petitioner during the Appraisal Year 2014 is within the norms prescribed by
the respondents; i.e., upto 38 and the petitioner having income expense ratio
37.18%, it is not open for the respondents to contend that the petitioner
performance during the Appraisal Year - 2014 was not satisfactory.
24. Further, as noted herein above, since, the show cause notices as issued
from June, 2015, did not mention anything about non performance of the
petitioner during the Appraisal Year - 2014, this Court is of the view that the
respondents cannot be allowed to claim non satisfactory performance regarding
the Appraisal Year - 2014 and are required to justify their stand only on the basis
of proceedings initiated relating to the performance of the petitioner during the
Appraisal year - 2015.
12/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11883 of 2020
25. Insofar as, the performance of the petitioner for the Appraisal year –
2015, i.e., commencing from 01.06.2014 to 30.04.2015, is concerned,
admittedly, the respondents themselves have granted maternity leave to the
petitioner for a period of 6 months which ended only on 08.12.2014. Though
the petitioner joined back the service of the respondents as Development
Officer, one cannot ignore the fact of the petitioner having attained motherhood
in the month of July 2014 and the needs she would be required to fulfill as a
mother of a new born.
26. Though on behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the
petitioner being the Development Officer, is only required to appoint agents and
motivate them to sell the various products / policies of the respondents, and the
petitioner having failed in that regard, it is to be noted that the respondents by
their own admission, admit to the fact of petitioner having covered 34 lifes
during the Appraisal period – 2015, though the premium collection was only to
the tune of 2.86 lakhs. The fact of the petitioner through her agents having
covered 34 lifes during the Appraisal year, post maternity leave, would go to
show that the petitioner had put in effort to generate policy income for the
respondents Corporation and it is not as if the petitioner was sitting idle, inspite
of petitioner having to traverse the complexities of motherhood. The
respondents however, ignorant of the aforesaid fact, adopting a mechanical
13/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11883 of 2020
approach initiated proceedings against the petitioner by issuing show cause
notice placing reliance on the Rules. It is to be noted that the Rules would be
applicable in normal circumstances and not when the supervening
circumstances occur like act of God, Covid 19, when conditions like lock down
had been imposed by the Government.
27. Though in the facts of the present case, there is no supervening
circumstance preventing the petitioner from discharging her duties, the fact of
the petitioner being a women and the legislature having conferred certain rights
and benefits, particularly in the form of granting maternity leave under the
Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, the respondents ignoring the said rights and
benefits, could not and ought not to have held that the petitioner having failed to
collect premium income and thus, the petitioner performance was not within the
frame work of the Service Rules, 2009.
28. Further, a reading of Service Rules, 2009 of the respondents, on the
basis of which, the respondents have terminated the service of the petitioner, in
particular Rule – 3 provides that - “the service of a confirmed Development
Officer shall not be terminated on the ground of poor business production
resulting in cost ratio in excess of the expense limit applicable to him, unless he
has been given an opportunity to confirm to the expense limit” as provided in
Rule 6.
14/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11883 of 2020
29. Rule 6 of the Service Rules, 2009 provides for disincentivizing the
Development Officer where the annual remuneration in the preceeding year is in
excess of expense limit, and provided for being granted atleast three
opportunities to improve performance. Thus, a conjoint reading of Rule 3, 6
and 7 of Service Rules, 2009, would indicate that the respondents are required
to sensitize / inform the concerned development Officer of his / her non-
performance, due to which, he being disincentivized and provide an opportunity
to improve before resorting to take action under Rule 6(8) r/w. Rule 7 of the
Service Rules, 2009.
30. In the facts of the present case, no material is placed on record by the
respondents to show that the petitioner being disincentivized, her performance
having not improved, thereby the respondents having resorted to invoking Rule
7 of the Service Rules, 2009. That apart, the respondents by the counter
affidavit filed have not provided any details as to whether the petitioner has
been informed during the Appraisal year -2015, of her falling performance,
attracting action under Rule – 7 of the Service Rules, 2009.
31. As the respondents have failed to follow the Service Rules, 2009 and
straight away initiated action under Rule 7 of the Service Rules, 2009, the said
action of the respondents is to be held as vitiated and unsustainable.
15/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11883 of 2020
32. It is also disheartening to note that not only the 1st respondent failed to
consider the special circumstances in which the petitioner was placed during the
Appraisal year - 2015, the 2 nd respondent to whom an appeal was filed by the
petitioner pursuant to order in W.A.No.1583 of 2015, except mentioning about
the number of agents recruited and terminated during the Appraisal year -2015
and subsequently, did not consider the plea of petitioner of her performance
getting affected during the Appraisal year on account of her availing maternity
leave, nor recorded any finding as how the said leave availed could not have
impacted her performance.
33. Further, the 2 nd respondent while confirming the order also did not
take into consideration the mitigating circumstances for her non performance
during the Appraisal year 2015, and whether the petitioner was provided with
opportunity to improve her performance in the subsequent Appraisal period.
34. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in similar
circumstances taking note of the provisions of the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961,
and also the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, held that the fact of employee
was on maternity leave for 6 months is a relevant fact for considering her
explanation in reply to the notice issued under Rule 7 (1) of the Service Rules,
2009 and accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the respondents. The aforesaid
16/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11883 of 2020
view expressed by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court,
applies in all force to the facts of the present case.
35. It is pertinent to note that the Special Leave Petition filed by the
respondents against the decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.16452 of 2016 was
dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 12.11.2024. Thus,
the view taken by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, has attained
finality.
36. As the petitioner in the present case is similarly placed like the
respondent before the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, this Court is of
the view that the aforesaid decision of the Kerala High Court as affirmed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court, by dismissing the SLP would apply in all force to the case
of the petitioner and thus, the petitioner is also entitled for being granted relief
of setting aside the orders impugned in the present writ petition as passed by the
1st respondent, dated 18.12.2017, as confirmed by the 2 nd respondent, dated
19.03.2020.
37. Further, the approach adopted by the respondents, in the view of this
Court is on account of ignorance, respecting and understanding the needs of
17/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11883 of 2020
working women, since the respondents Corporation never had the benefit of
having women chairman / chairmanship, except two women occupying the post
of Managing Director since, the inception of respondent corporation in the year
1956.
38. Further, the respondents while mechanically applying the Rules
appears to be ignorant of the obligation which they have to perform, particularly
while employing women in their organizations. The respondents admittedly
having granted maternity leave to the petitioner are required to ensure that they
comply with the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 which provides
for maintaining of the nursing rooms, maintenance of Creche facilities. Judicial
notice can be taken of the fact, that excepting in major officers of the
respondents, such facilities are seldom exist. Thus, the respondents cannot be
allowed to claim that while an employee is required to adhere to the service
conditions / Rules, they can continue to violate the statutory requirements.
39. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed; and the order of the 1 st
respondent, dated 18.12.2017, as confirmed by the 2 nd respondent, vide order
dated 19.03.2020, is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the
petitioner into service. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner is
required to collect annual premium for every Appraisal year and on account of
18/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11883 of 2020
the fact, she being out of employment from the date of the first respondent
passing the impugned order dated 18.12.2017, this Court is of the view that the
petitioner would not be entitled for being granted any monetary benefits in the
form of backwages or to seek restoration of seniority. No costs.
10-04-2026
vum
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
To
1.The Life Insurance Corporation of India
rep by the Zonal Manager, LIC Building,
153, Anna Salai, Chennai-02
2.The Life Insurance Corporation Of India
rep by its Managing director, Yogakshema,
Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai-400 021.
19/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11883 of 2020
T.VINOD KUMAR J.
vum
Pre-Delivery Order made in
WP No. 11883 of 2020
10-04-2026
20/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis