Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.@mdashIn order to give effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles enshrined in Clause (C) of Article 39 of the Constitution of India and to nationalise the general insurance business in the country, Parliament passed the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called ''the Act''). It provided, inter alia, for the acquisition and transfer of shares of Indian insurance companies and undertakings of other existing insurers in order to better serve the needs of the economy by securing the development of general insurance business in the best interest of the community and to ensure that operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth to the common detriment. Section 3 of the Act is the dictionary giving definitions of various terms and expressions. It defines "Indian insurance company" to mean an existing insurer having a share capital who is a company within the meaning of the Companies Act. The "scheme" is defined to mean the scheme framed u/s 16. By virture of Section 4, all the shares in the capital of every Indian insurance company shall, on the appointed day, stand transferred to and vested in the Central Government free of all trusts, liabilities and encumberances affecting them. Section 5 provides for the transfer of undertaking of every existing insurer, who is not an Indian insurance company to and vesting in the Central Government. It further provides that the Central Government shall immediately thereafter provide for the transfer to end vesting in such Indian insurance company as it may specify in the notification, of that undertaking. Section 6 spelled out the effect of transfer of the undertakings. Provision is made in Section 7 for the transfer of services of existing officers and other employees of the existing insurers, other than the Indian insurance companies, to the Indian insurance company in which the undertaking of that insurer vested. This section also provided for the protection of the conditions of service of such officers and employees. Section 9 enjoined the Central Government to form a Government company, in accordance with the provisions of the companies Act, to be known as the General Insurance Corporation of India for the purpose of superintending, controlling and carrying on the business of general insurance. Chapter IV, which includes Sections 11 to 15, took care of compensation that was to be paid for the acquisition of the undertakings of the insurers and the transfer of the shares of the Indian insurance companies. Section 16 of Chapter, v. makes provision for there-organisation of General Insurance Company and also makes provision for framing of one or more schemes providing for the merger in one Indian insurance company of any other Indian insurance company, or the formation of a new company by the amalgamation of two or more Indian insurance companies ; the transfer to and vesting in the acquiring company of the undertaking of any Inidan insurance company which ceased to exist by reason of the scheme ; the constitution, name and registered office and the capital structure of the acquiring company and the issue and allotment of shares ; the constitution of a board of management for the management of the acquiring company ; the alteration of the memorandum and articles of association of the acquiring company ; the continuance in the acquiring company of the services of all officers and other employees of the Indian insurance company on the same terms and conditions by which they were governed ; the rationalisation or revision of pay scales and other terms and conditions of service of officer and other employees wherever necessary and other provisions for more efficient carrying on of the general insurance business.
2. It will be apposite to read the relevant provisions of Section 16 of the Act in extenso:
16. Scheme for merger of companies etc.-(1). If the Centra! Government is of opinion that for the more efficient carrying on of general insurance business it is necessary so to do, it may by notification frame one or more schemes providing for all or any of the following matters:
(a) the merger in one Indian insurance company of any other Indian insurance company, or the formation of a new company by amalgamation of two or more Indian insurance companies;
(b) the transfer to and vesting in the acquiring company of the undertaking (including all its business, properties, assets and liabilities) of any Indian insurance company which ceased to exist by reason of the scheme;
(c) xxx xxx xxx xxx
(d) xxx xxx xxx xxx
(e) xxx xxx xxx xxx
(f) the continuance in the acquiring company of the services of all officers and other employees of the Indian insurance company which has ceased to exist by reason of the scheme, on the same terms and conditions which they were getting or, as the case may be, by which they were governed immediately before the commencement of the scheme ;
(g) the rationalisation or revision of pay scales and other terms and conditions of service of officers and other employees wherever necessary ;
(h) xxx xxx xxx xxx
(i) xxx xxx xxx xxx
(j) such incidental, consequential and supplemental matters as are necessary to give full effect to the scheme.
(2) In framing schemes under Sub-section (1), the object of the Central Government shall be to ensure that ultimately there are only four companies (excluding the Corporation) in existence and that they are so situate as to render their combined services effective in all parts of India.
(3) Where a scheme u/s (1) provides for the transfer of any property or liabilities, then, by virtue of the scheme, the property shall stand transferred to and vested in, and those liabilities shall be transferred to and become the liabilities of, the acquiring company.
(4) If the rationalisation or revision of any pay scale or other terms and conditions of any scheme is not acceptable to any officer or other employee, the acquiring company may terminate his employ ment by giving him compensation equivalent to three months'' remuneration, unless the contract of service with such employee provides for a shorter notice of termination.
Explanantion.-The compensation payable to an officer or other employee under this Sub-section shall be in addition to, and shall not effect, any pension, gratuity, provident fund or other benefit to which the employee may be entitled under his contract of service.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 or in any other law for the time in force, the transfer of the services of any officer or other employee of an Indian insurance company to the acquiring company shall not entitle any such officer or other employee to any compensation under that Act or other law, and no such claim shall be entertained by any court, tribunal or other authority.
(5) The Central Government may, by notification, add to, amend or vary any scheme framed under this section.
(7) The provisions of this section and of any scheme framed under it shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or any agreement, award or other instrument for the time being in force.
Section 17 of the Act postulates that a copy of every scheme and amendment thereto framed u/s 15 shall be laid, as soon as may be, after it is made, before each House of Parliament. The rest of the provisions in the Act are not relevant for the purpose of this petition.
3. The Central Government formed an opinion that for the more efficient carrying on the general insurance business, it was necessary to frame schemes for the merger of Indian insurance companies and in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act, it framed a scheme called the National Insurance Company Limited (Merger) Scheme, 1973 (''1973 Scheme'' for short). Nine companies, including the Hindustan General Insurance Society Ltd. (''Society'' for short) which, according to the definition in the Scheme, became a trans-free company. Under paragraph 3 of the scheme, the undertakings of the merged companies stood transferred and vested in the. transferee company on the day specified. The 1973 Scheme was to come into force on January 1, 1974, and this date was also declared to be the specified day. The salient features of the Scheme are that the undertakings of every merged Company shall stand transferred to and vested in the transferee Company on the specific date. Paragraph 4 of the Scheme is an articulation of the effect of the transfer of the undertakings under Clause (3) ibid. Paragraph 5 deals with the transfer of service of existing employees. It reads:
5. Transfer of service of existing employees. - Every whole-time officer or other employee of any merged company who was employed by such company immediately before the specified day shall on and from that day become an officer or other employee, as the case may be, of the transferee company and shall hold his office or service under the transferee company on the same terms and conditions and with the same rights as to pension, gratuity and other matters as would have been admissible to him if there had been no such transfer as referred to in paragraph 3 and shall continue to do so, unless and. until his employment in the transferee company is terminated or until his remuneration, terms and conditions are duly altered by the transferee company or by any other scheme framed under the Act.
4. Shri M.L. Nohria, the writ Petitioner, had joined service with the Society as Office Superintendent in 1964 and on the opening of a branch of the Society at Patiala, he was designated as Officer-in-charge of the branch. Subsequently, the Branch was designated as a Division and the Petitioner''s designation was changed to Divisional Manager. He was the only officer managing the Patiala Branch of the Society. The Society has three grades for its Divisional Managers and the Patiala Branch being the smallest and the Petitioner being the junior-most officer, was placed in the ''C'' grade On the merger of the Society with the National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ''the Company''), the Petitioner, by operation of law, became an employee of the latter.
5. Prior to nationalisation, 107 insurance companies, which were engaged in the business of general insurance, had widely desparate working patterns and had given a variety of designations or nomenclatures to their officers. In order to effectuate of a fair and proper absorption of the various officers and other employees of the merging companies in the acquiring companies, the Government of India appointed the General Insurance Services Integration Committee also commonly known as Hathrani Committee (for short, the ''Integration Committee''). The Government, having regard to the job content, pay scales and other related and relevant matters, devided the posts of the officers of these companies, braodly into three categories, viz., (i) Lower Management posts, (ii) Middle Management posts and (iii) others. The Integration Committee was, among others, required to submit a list of persons who were considered suitable by them, for appointment to Middle Management posts. The Integration Committee considered the record of service and the bio-data and other relevant factors and interviewed the officers including the Petitioner and recommended the names of officers who were found suitable to be appointed to the Middle Management posts. The Integration Committee did not consider the Petitioner fit for appointment to the Middle Management posts. The Petitioner, vide latter dated December 18, 1974 (copy Annexure R-1) was informed that he had been provisionally selected for appointment in the rank of Administrative Officer and he was appointed as such, It was mentioned that the appointment was purely provisional and did not confer any right to the post or any perticular seniority in the Company. The Petitioner was to hold this post on the same terms and conditions of service by which he was governed at that time and was to continue to do so until such time as the remuneration, terms and conditions were duly altered by the Company. The Petitioner was requested to sign the duplicate of the appointment letter in confirmation of his acceptance of the offer. Vide his letter dated January 17, 1975 (copy Annexure R-2), the Petitioner sent to the Company the duplicate of the appointment letter duly signed by him in confirmation. The Northern Regional Office of the Company issued a circular dated December 27, 1974 (copy Annexure P-3) containing list of the provisional appointments in the rank of Branch Managers and Acting Branch Secretaries. Thereby the Petitioner was appointed as Branch Manager of the Patiala Branch. It was provided in that circular letter that the above appointments would be effective from January 1, 1975 and were purely provisional and did not confer on the officers any right to the post or to any particular seniority in the Company.
6. The Government of India, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act framed another scheme known as General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Officers) Scheme, 1975 (hereinafter called the 1975 Scheme) to provide for the rationalisation of pay scales and other terms and conditions of service of officers serving under insurers. Clause (1) or para 3 of this Scheme defines "Officer" to mean an employee appointed in India before the commencement of this Scheme and serving whether in India or outside India, in a position other than supervisory, clerical or subordinate position, and categorised as holding any of the posts referred to in the Schedules but does not include an employee declared as a member of development staff by the Committee appointed by the Board." Para 4 provides for the pay and allowances of the officers and it reads as under:
4. Pay and allowances of officers.-(1) The scales of pay and other allowances shall be as given in the first, second or the third schedule.
(2) Every Chairman and every Officer other than the Chairman shall, within ninety days from the date of commencement of this Scheme, by notice in writing addressed to the Central Government or, as the case may be, the Chairman, through the head of his office, specify the date from which the new terms shall be made applicable to him:
Provided that-
(a) in the case of an Officer referred to in Clause (i) of paragraph 2, the date shall be either from the first day of January, 1973, or any later date being a date not later than the date of commencement of this Scheme ;
(b) in the case of any officer referred to in Clauses (ii) to (v) of that paragraph, the date shall be either the date of confirmation, or the date of absorption, of such officer.
(3) (a) Where the date specified by an Officer under sub-paragraph (1) is a date earlier than the date of commencement of this Scheme, such Officer shall be paid for the period commencing from such date and ending with the day proceding the date of commencement of this Scheme, the difference between the new terms and the present gross emoluments.
(b) Where any portion of leave had been encashed by such Officer during the period referred to in Clause (a), such Officer shall not be required to refund any amount realised by him by way of such encashment.
(c) Where during the period referred to in Clause (a), such Officer was holding a post other than the one on which he was normally employed or was in receipt of any allowance of a transcient nature, ''the present gross emoluments'', which he would have drawn in the post on which he was normally employed shall alone be taken into account for the purpose of this paragraph and paragraph 6.
Para 5 lays down that if any officers have not been categorised so far, the Committee appointed by the Board shall, within two months from the date of commencement of this scheme, complete assessment of the suitability of such officers, being categorised as Assistant Administrative Officers within the authorised cadre strength, etc. It further provides that where an Officer is not categorised as Assistant Administrative Officer under sub-paragraph (1), he shall be categorised as Junior Officer. The Scheme contains elaborate provisions regarding the method of fixation of pay, increments, Provident Fund. Payment of Gratuity, protection of accrued pension, etc. Para 16 provides that no officer shall be entitled to any benefit not arising out of this Scheme or any Scheme which may be framed by the Corporation or a Company. Para 17 gives an overriding effect to the Scheme and lays down that the provisions of this Scheme shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any terms of appointment, agreement, award or other instrument for the time in force. Second Schedule to the 1975 Scheme specifies the pay scales of General Manager, Assistant General Manager, Manager, Deputy Manager, Assistant Manager, Administrative Officer and Assistant Administrative Officer. The pay scale (basic pay) of the Assistant Manager is Rs. 1000-50-1300-75.1675 and that of the Administrative Officer is Rs. 770-40-1050-50-1300. It also enumerates the amount of Dearness Allowance payable to the officers on the various scales of pay. It also deals with House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance and maximum Personal Pay.
7. After the framing of the 1975 Scheme, the Officers and employees were required to notify within ninety days of the commencement of the Scheme, i.e. 1st October, 1975 the date from which the new terms should be made applicable to them. They were requested to exercise the option in respect of the date from which they wanted the Scheme to be applicable to them. It was intimated that the basic salary of the officers in the new scale of pay shall be fixed on the basis of Officer''s present gross salary on the date of the fixation plus an amount of Rs. 50/-. The Petitioner exercised the option vide letter dated 23rd October, 1975 in terms of paragragh 4(2) of the 1975 Scheme. He specified 1st January, 1973 as the date from which the new terms should be made applicable to him. Vide letter dated 10th August, 1977 (copy Annexure P-4) the various officers including the Petitioner were informed that officers who were aggrieved by the decision of the Committee appointed by the General Insurance Corporation of India for the purpose of categorisation of Officers might within 60 days, to be calculated from 16th August, 1977, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority notified therein through the respective appointing authorities. It was clearly laid down in this Circular letter that where the categorisation had been done with the approval of the Board of the General Insurance Corporation of India, no appeal lay. The Petitioner was not satisfied with his categorisation and appointment as Administrative Officer. He considered that he was entitled to be appointed as an Assistant Manager in the Middle Management posts. He filed an appeal on 13th October, 1977 (copy Annexure P-5). After a prolonged correspondence the Petitioner received a communication dated 17th June, 1978 (copy Annexure P-7) from Shri N.N. Lahiri, General Manager of the National Insurance Company Ltd. intimating that the Petitioner''s appeal was considered carefelly but the Appeals Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company was of the view that there was no ground for revision of his categorisation. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
8. In reply to the rule nisi, the Respondents have filed a written statement controverting the pleas raised in the writ petition and taking up a number of preliminary objections. One of the objections was that the National Insurance Company Ltd. was only a Company and was not an authority as envisaged by Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. This objection prevailed. It was held by a Division Bench of this Court that the National Insurance Company Ltd. was neither ''State'' for the purpose of Article 12 nor a statutory Corporation amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and as such, the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 26th February, 1979. Against the decision of this Court, the Petitioner filed an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 1676 of 1979) in the final Court. There both the parties agreed that the appeal may be allowed and the matter be remitted back to the High Court for disposal on merits according to law. Consequently, their Lordships of the Supreme Court accepted the appeal and remitted the case back to this Court for disposal on merits. That is how the writ petition is before us.
9. Shri J.L. Gupta. Senior Advocate, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has raised three contentions before us in support of the writ petition:
(i) The conditions of service of the Petitioner came to be governed by the provisions of the Act. They could be changed only by framing a scheme. The Petitioner could not be categorised as an Administrative Officer and demoted from the post of Branch Manager to that of an Administrative Officer on the recommendations of the Integration Committee. The Central Government, the General Insurance Corporation of India or the National Insurance Company Ltd. did not frame any scheme for categorisation of the officers. The action of catrgorising the Petitioner as an Administrative Officer in the lower Management posts is not referable to any provision of the Act and is wholly without jurisdiction;
(ii) The action of the Respondents in categorising and appoiting the Petitioner as an Administrative Officer is arbitrary and discriminatory and is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution, because there was no consideration and comparison of merit interse of the officers of the various merging Companies before categorising these officers coming from different companies. Five persons named in sub-para (iii) of para 8 of the writ petition, who were far junior to the Petitioner and were occupying lower posts, have been categorised as Divisional Managers and have been posted to higher posts. The claim of Petitioner vis-a-vis the persons junior to him were not considered ; and
(iii) The order rejecting the Petitioner''s appeal does not disclose any reasons for the conclusions arrived at. It is a non-speaking order.
10. There is no express provision in the Act protecting the remuneration and other conditions of service of the officers and other employees of the merging companies in the service of the transferee companies. Though u/s 7 of the Act provision has been made for the transfer of services of whole time officers and other employees of the existing insurers other than the Indian insurance companies, there is no such provision covering the cases of the officers and employees of the Indian insurance Companies which were merged in the transferee Companies. Indeed, Clauses (f) and (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act invest the Central Government to frame scheme, inter alia, for the continuance in the transferee company of the services of officers and other employees of the merging companies on the same terms and conditions which they were getting, or by which they were governed before the commencement of the scheme These provisions also empower the Central Government to nationalise or revise the pay scales and other terms and conditions of service of the officers and other employees by framing a scheme Thus, the Act confers on the Central Government powers to revise, rationalise and alter the pay scales and other terms and conditions of service of the officers and employees of the merging insurance companies even to their prejudice and detriment. The schemes framed u/s 16 of the Act are of a statutory nature having the force of law. It is now well settled, and is not contested by the Petitioner, that the conditions of service of even public servants can be prejudicially altered by legislative enactment. Paragraph 5 of the 1973 Scheme provides that every whole time officer of the merging company shall, on the appointed day, become an officer of the transferee company and shall hold his office on the same terms and conditions as were admissible to him, and shall continue to do so, unless and until his employment in the transferee company was terminated or until his remuneration and terms and conditions are altered by the transferee company or by any scheme framed under the Act. So where paragraph 5 of the 1973 Scheme has protected the terms and conditions of the service of the officers of the merging companies with the transferee company, it has also clothed the transferee company with authority to terminate their services and to alter their remuneration and other conditions of service. Their tenure of service has been rendered tenuous and the remuneration and other conditions of service transient and contingent. There is no statutory protection to the officers against the disadvantageous alteration of conditions of their service. Rather express authority has been given to the transferee company to alter these. So by virtue of paragraph 5 of the 1973 Scheme, the National Insurance Company Ltd. was fully competent to change the conditions of service of its officers and other employees, including the Petitioner, even to their detriment. Thus, the conditions of service of the Petitioner are governed by the 1973 and 1975 Schemes and have been altered on the authority of these Scheme, which have the force of law.
11. The revision and rationalisation of conditions of service encompasses the categorisation of various officers and employees into different classes and categories. The power to categorise flows from paragraph 5 of the 1973 Scheme. It is only a step in the process of revision and rationalisation of conditions of service. The Central Government and the National Insurance Company Ltd. were fully competent to do so. To achieve this objective of categorising thousands of officers and employees of the merging companies and the existing insurers, the Central Government and the transferee companies could legitimately take the assistance of expert bodies like the Integration Committee. The statutory provisions do not inhibit expressly or by implication recourse to such a procedure. After-all, the Integration Committee had to only assist and advise the Central Government. The integration Committee took the bio-data, service record and other relevant matters into account. The Committee even interviwed the officers including the Petitioner. Though not expressly stated, it is inferrable from the contents of paragraph 2 of the written statement that the Integration Committee and the Central Government had, while categorising the various officers, kept in mind the designation of an officer in the merging company, years of service in that category (designation), premium control, number of staff supervised and the number of branches controlled or supervised. All these were relevant factors. The procedure adopted by the Integration Committee was fair and just; it cannot be termed as arbitrary or discriminatory. The Central Government had taken assistance from the reports of the Integration Committee. However, the final decision regarding the categorisation, integration and absorption of the Petitioner and other officers and employees of the merging companies had been taken by the Central Government, which it was competent to do so under the 1973 and 1975 Scheme. So the categorisation of the Petitioner had been done under a validly framed scheme. No separate scheme was necessary for making any alteration in the terms and conditions of service of the officers and employees. The matter is not res integra. It is covered by a decision of the final Court in
Civil Appeals 880-882 of 1980 are appeals filed by the General Insurance Corporation and the Insurance Company against the judgment of the Kerala High Court quashing the categorisation of the respective Respondents (Petitioners before the High Court). We may straight-away say that we are unable to uphold the judgment of the High Court.
Their Lordships further observed:
The submission advanced before us by the learned Counsel for the Respondents, which submission had found favour with the High Court, was that the Lower Management Committee was improperly constituted and it had no jurisdiction to make the categorisation and, therefore, approval of the categorisation by the Government of India was illegal. We are afraid we cannot accept this submission. The question is not whether the Lower Management Committee was properly constituted or improperly constituted but whether the Government of India had decided the matter in accordance with the directions of the Kerala High Court Merely because the Government observes that there was no reason to depart from the categorisation made by the Lower Management Committee, we do not see how it follows that the Government of India did not apply its mind to the question. Even an improperly constituted Committee could come to a right conclusion and that conclusion could properly be accepted as correct by the authority to whom the matter was referred by consent. We do not see any justification for straight-away drawing the conclusion, without anything more, that the authority to whom the matter was referred did not apply its mind. We, therefore, allow Civil Appeals 880-882 of 1980, reject the writ petitions filed in the High Court and confirm the categorisation made by the Government of India in those cases.
It was further observed ;
Transferred Cases Nos. 360-363 of 1983 arise out of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court who purported to follow the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court which had quashed the categorisation made by the Government of India pursuant to the consent order of the Kerala High Court. The learned Judge further purported to hold that the categorisation of "Officers'' had to be done by the Central Government u/s 7 of the Act and not by the Lower Management Commitee. A bare perusal of Section 7 of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 exposes the hollowness of this contention. Section 7(1), as its very first clause shows, applies only to officers or employees of existing insurers other than Indian insurance companies. Section 7(2) also refers, not to all existing insurers, but only to existing insurers referred to in Sub-section (1). Therefore, there can be no question of applying Section 7 to erstwhile officers and employees of Indian insurance companies. The question whether erstwhile officers or employees can be categorised as an officer of any of the four units of the General Insurance Corporation has to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the schemes made u/s 16. The decision of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court cannot, therefore, be sustained. The transferred appeal are, therefore, allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court is set aside.
12. Civil Appeal No. 367 of 1980 and other similar appeals were also allowed and the judgments of the various High Courts were set aside and the categorisation based on the basis of the actual work turned out by the officers concerned during the years under consideration was upheld.
13. So there is no merit in the first contention of Mr. Gupta that conditions of service of the Petitioner were changed without authority of law and without framing a scheme and the categorisation of the Petitioner as an Administrative Officer was not referable to any provision of the Act and was without jurisdiction.
14. The second contention of Shri Gupta is equally untenable. In ground (iii) of Para 8 of the writ petition, the Petitioner has averred that the action of authorities is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. Some of the persons who were far junior to the Petitioner and were occupying lower posts have been categorised as Divisional Managers, etc. By way of illustration, the names of Shri R. S. Dalvie, Acting Manager of Commercial Union, Shri K. K. Samat. Manafler, Sterling, Shri Ranjit Singh, Branch Superintendent, Sun Alliance, Shri R. L. Mehra, Branch Manager, National Insurance and Shri B. N. Madan, Assistant, Sun Alliance have been mentioned. It is further contended that all these persons were holding position junior to that of the Petitioner and have now been posted on higher posts and the Petitioner''s claims were not compared vis-a-vis the persons junior to him while making these appointments.
15. In reply the Respondents urged that the categorisation of the Petitioner was based on various relevant consideration set out in the earlier part of the reply and not on seniority. There was no intercompany seniority maintained and in the Society where the Petitioner was working, he was the junior-most officer and three other officers, who were above him, were also categorised as Administrative Officers. Shri K.K. Samat, whose name has been quoted, was not an, employee of the Company.
16. It is apparent from the factual narration given earlier that the Petitioner was the junior-most officer supervising the smallest branch. He has not specifically pleaded that he has been placed junior to any of the officers of his Company who were earlier junior to him. In fact, according to the placings of the officers of the Society as set out in paragraph 2 of the written statement, three officers of the Society, namely, D. Roy, D. N. Haldar and A. Ghosh, who were above the Petitioner, have also like the Petitioner been placed in the category of Administrative Officer in the Lower Management posts. Divisional Manager or Branch Manager is not a grade but the description of a function or a designation. An Officer in the grade of an Administrative Officer when posted as In-charge of a Branch Office is described as Branch Manager. The only grades of officers in the general insurance industry, as set out in the 1975 Scheme, are Chairman-cum-Managing Director, General Manager, Assistant General Manager, Deputy Manager, Assistant Manager, Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer. Divisional Manager is no grade. It is only a designation; a description of a function. An Administrative Officer may also be appointed as a Divisional Manager, but that will not place him in the grade or cadre of Divisional Manager because there is none like that. So the Petitioner has wrongly averred in the petition that the officers named by him had been placed in the category of Divisional Managers. There is no such category. The complaint of the Petitioner in this regard is, therefore, wholly misconceived. The Petitioner cannot have any grievance on the appointment of some officers of other merging companies as Divisional Managers, because that per se does not indicate that they have been placed in a higher category. The Petitioner has not pleaded clearly and categorically as to what was the actual standing and status of the persons mentioned in their respective companies and how those posts or offices held by those officers compared with the one held by him. The Petitioner has not supplied any data in this respect. He has rather wrongly pleaded that Shri K. K. Samat, Manager, Sterling, had been appointed as Divisional Manager in the National Insurance Company Ltd. whereas he was not even an employee of that Company. Though the pleadings on this aspect of the matter woefully lacked in specifics and were rather vague, yet in order to do justice between the parties, we asked Shri Dhanda, learned Counsel for the Respondents, to inform us about the status of the above mentioned persons in their respective merging companies in the matter of holding posts of responsibility and emoluments and their categorisation. Shri Dhanda, after purusing the official record and consulting the officers of the Respondents present in Court, categorically stated at the Bar that out of the five persons mentioned, Shri K. K. Samat was not an employee of the National Insurance Company Ltd. Sarvshri Ranjit Singh, R. L. Mehra, and B. N. Madan had been placed in the same category as the Petitioner, i. e. Administrative Officer. Shri Dalvie, at the time of the merger, was in-charge of the Bombay Branch of his Company. It was big branch, He was getting higher emoluments and holding a post of higher responsibility and was, therefore, placed in a Higher category, i.e. Assistant Manager. Shri Gupta, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is unable to contradict these factual assertions of Shri Dhanda and we accept the same. It is clear that the persons mentioned by the Petitioner, except Shri Dalvie, have been placed in the category of Administrative Officer like the Petitioner. Shri Dalvie, on the merits of his case, has been placed in a higher category. The Petitioner did not hold a post comparable to a post held by Shri Dalvie. Thus, the Petitioner has failed to substantiate the plea of discrimination and violation of Article 16 of the Constitution. It has been stated that the Integration Committee had examined the records of all the officers and had interviewed them and made recommendations regarding their categorisation. The Central Government thereon took decision regarding the final categorisation. So it cannot be said that there has been no comparison of the merits of the various officers before putting them in the various categories.
17. The order (copy Annexure P-7 appended with the writ petition) is not the order rejecting the appeal. There is intrinsic evidence in this document that this not the original order. It is only a communication from the General Manager of the National insurance Company Ltd. informing the Petitioner about the decision taken by the Appeals Committee of the Board of Directors. Furthermore, it was not a statutory appeal. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the appellate authority had not considered the case of the Petitioner/Appellant. The third contention of Mr. Gupta also fails.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and dismiss the same but with no order as to costs.
