Tripura High Court
Sri Sidhartha Dey vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 27 April, 2018
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
Page 1 of 20
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
(1) WP(C) NO.1704/2017
Sri Sidhartha Dey,
S/O Lt. Krishna Kamal Dey,
R/O Haradhan Sangha, Krishnanagar, Agartala,
P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
District-West Tripura, Pin-799 001.
...........Petitioner
Versus
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Central Office, "Yagakshema" Building,
J.B. Marg, Nariman Point,
Mumbai-400 021, through its Chairman.
2. The Managing Director,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Central Office, "Yagakshema" Building,
J.B. Marg, Nariman Point,
Mumbai-400 021.
3. The Executive Director(M-B & AC),
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Marketing Bancassurance & Alternate
Central Department, Central Office,
Yogakeshema(West Wing),
J.B. Marg, Mumbai-400 021.
4. The Zonal Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Eastern Zonal Office, Hindustan Building,
C.R. Avenue, Kolkata-700 072.
5. The Senior Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Divisional Office, Silchar Division,
Meherpur, Pin-788 015.
6. The Manager(B & AC),
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Silchar Divisional Office, Meherpur, Pin-788 015.
7. The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Agartala, B.O.49E,
P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
District-West Tripura, Pin-799 001.
...........Respondents
Page 2 of 20
(2) WP(C) NO.1705/2017
Smt. Panna Saha,
W/O Sri Jatan Roy,
R/O Bhati Abhoynagar(Paschimpara),
Suryapalli, Agartala,
P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
District-West Tripura, Pin-799 001.
...........Petitioner
Versus
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Central Office, "Yagakshema" Building,
J.B. Marg, Nariman Point,
Mumbai-400 021, through its Chairman.
2. The Managing Director,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Central Office, "Yagakshema" Building,
J.B. Marg, Nariman Point,
Mumbai-400 021.
3. The Executive Director(M-B & AC),
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Marketing Bancassurance & Alternate
Central Department, Central Office,
Yogakeshema(West Wing),
J.B. Marg, Mumbai-400 021.
4. The Zonal Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Eastern Zonal Office, Hindustan Building,
C.R. Avenue, Kolkata-700 072.
5. The Senior Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Divisional Office, Silchar Division,
Meherpur, Pin-788 015.
6. The Manager(B & AC),
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Silchar Divisional Office, Meherpur, Pin-788 015.
7. The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Agartala Branch I, B.O.499,
P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
District-West Tripura, Pin-799 001.
...........Respondents
Page 3 of 20
(3) WP(C) NO.1706/2017
Sri Chinmoy Bhowmik,
S/O Lt. Satyendra Chandra Bhowmik,
R/O Village Bijoynagar,
P.O. Bijoynagar, P.S. Sidhai Mohanpur,
District-West Tripura, Pin-799 211.
...........Petitioner
Versus
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Central Office, "Yagakshema" Building,
J.B. Marg, Nariman Point,
Mumbai-400 021, through its Chairman.
2. The Managing Director,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Central Office, "Yagakshema" Building,
J.B. Marg, Nariman Point,
Mumbai-400 021.
3. The Executive Director(M-B & AC),
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Marketing Bancassurance & Alternate
Central Department, Central Office,
Yogakeshema(West Wing),
J.B. Marg, Mumbai-400 021.
4. The Zonal Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Eastern Zonal Office, Hindustan Building,
C.R. Avenue, Kolkata-700 072.
5. The Senior Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Divisional Office, Silchar Division,
Meherpur, Pin-788 015.
6. The Manager(B & AC),
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Silchar Divisional Office, Meherpur, Pin-788 015.
7. The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Agartala Branch I, B.O.499,
P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
District-West Tripura, Pin-799 001.
...........Respondents
Page 4 of 20
For Petitioners(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Adv.
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Majumder, Adv.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJAY RASTOGI
JUDGMENT
Judgment reserved on : 20.04.2018 Judgment pronounced on : 27.04.2018
The present batch of writ petitions being based on common facts & law are being decided with the consent of the parties at this stage.
2. The minimal facts which are relevant for proper appreciation of the grievance of the petitioners are being noticed from WP(C) No.1704/2017.
3. The Life Insurance Corporation introduced a Scheme, namely, Life Insurance Corporation of India(Financial Service Executive) Scheme, 2007(hereinafter referred to as „the Scheme, 2007'). The Chairman in exercise of the powers vested under clause 28 of the Scheme, 2007 issued the administrative instructions for effective implementation of the scheme, placed on record (Annexure-2). The Scheme, 2007 authorizes the Zonal Managers to decide, based on the requirement of the Zones from time to time, the actual number of Financial Service Executive to be engaged keeping in view the Page 5 of 20 conditions of eligibility and to follow the procedure for engagement, including training and allocation.
4. After going through the procedure prescribed under the Scheme, 2007, the petitioner was engaged as Financial Service Executive(hereinafter referred to as „the FSE') on 21.08.2010 (Annexure-1) and was allotted Agartala Branch-II. It was purely a contractual appointment for a period of three years renewable at the sole discretion of the Corporation subject to fulfilment of the terms and conditions for another two years only, on a fixed remuneration of `10,000/- per month for the first year, subject to increase by `11,300/- and `12,700/- on second and third years respectively and remuneration was renewable on fulfilment of the terms and conditions under the Scheme, 2007. The writ petitioner got the extension for the seventh year vide order dt. 20.12.2016 (Annexure-8) and on its completion no extension was further offered to the petitioner.
5. The other two writ petitioners were also engaged as Financial Service Executive vide orders dt. 16.08.2012 and 31.08.2013 respectively after following the procedure prescribed under the Scheme, 2007 and on completion of their term of contract their engagement has not been further extended by the Corporation, in consequence thereto, on expiry of their term of contractual engagement, discontinued from service.
6. At this stage, the Board of Life Insurance Corporation of India in its 576th meeting held on 08.06.2017 took a decision to close the FSE Scheme, 2007 w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and the Chairman was authorised to issue necessary instructions in this regard. Page 6 of 20
Pursuant thereto, administrative instructions have been issued by the Chairman of the respondent-Corporation to implement the decision of the competent authority, namely the Board.
The minutes of the 576th meeting of the Board dt.
08.06.2017 has been placed on record(Annexure-2). In furtherance thereof, letter dt. 09.12.2017 was sent to all the Zonal Managers, Officers-in-charge of Divisions for the closure of the FSE Scheme, 2007 and for proper implementation of the Board decision.
It will be relevant to quote the decision of the Board dt. 08.06.2017, Annexure-2 and communication in furtherance thereto referred in Annexure-3 dt. 09.12.2017, reads as under:-
Annexure-2, dt. 08.06.2017 "Executive Director(Bancassurance) presented the note. The Financial Services Executives(FSE) Scheme was approved in the 529th Meeting of the Board held on 21-06-2007. The Scheme clearly mentioned that the engagement shall be purely on contractual basis initially for a period of three years. Board gave approval for extension of contractual period of FSEs upto 8th year. Though the scheme as well as engagement letter clearly states that the engagement is on contractual basis, persons getting engaged look for permanency in job and they do not want to take up direct agency or CLIA scheme for which options were given w.e.f. 01.09.2015. Further, the new IRDAI Regulations do not permit such engagements which will facilitate the New Business through banks.
Board discussed the matter and accorded approval for closure of FSE Scheme with effect from 01-07-2017. The board further authorized Chairman to issue necessary instructions in this regard."Page 7 of 20
Annexure-3, dt. 09.12.2017 "1. All the existing in-force FSEs, without any exception, shall be offered migration to the Chief Life Insurance Advisor(CLIA) Scheme with effect from 1st January, 2018. A letter to this effect should be issued to all FSEs, as per the enclosed Proforma.1, seeking consent for migration, as per Proforma 2.
The consent should be received by our offices latest by 3.00 pm on Friday, the 29th December, 2017.
2. The FSEs whose continuation in the Scheme was kept in abeyance in view of the impending closure of the FSE Scheme, will also be offered migration to CLIA Scheme, in the same manner as is described in 1 above.
3. A one-time transition allowance equal to 3 times the last drawn monthly gross remuneration will be paid to those FSEs who opt to join the CLIA Scheme. The One-time transition allowance will be paid only after the FSE is allotted a CLIA Code by the Divisional Office.
4. In case an FSE does not opt to migrate to the CLIA Scheme, his/her engagement as FSE will end at the close of office hours on Saturday, 30-12-2017. All such persons shall be issued letters of termination as per Proforma 3. All his/her dues till that date should be settled along with one month's gross remuneration as compensation in lieu of notice period.
5. All FSEs who have completed five years or more of contractual engagement are eligible for Gratuity as per Rules. This is to be settled in all eligible cases as per circular ref.CO/MBAC/ZD/19/2015 dated 09-04-2015.
6. The Sr. Divisional Manager(In-charge), being the Appointing Authority of FSEs, is the authority to issue the termination letter.
7. The status of migration to the CLIA Scheme or Termination should be recorded in the FSE Attendance Register. Page 8 of 20
8. Those FSEs who choose not to migrate to the CLIA Scheme and hence get terminated will have the option to take up Direct Agency with LIC."
7. According to the policy decision the FSE Scheme, 2007 stands closed with offer to the existing FSEs, without any exception, to migrate to the Chief Life Insurance Advisor(CLIA) Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.2018 and those who does not opt to migrate to the CLIA Scheme their engagement as FSE will end at the close of office hours on Saturday, 30.12.2017.
8. It is informed to this court that either of the petitioner is not inclined to accept the offer made by the Corporation permitting to migrate to CLIA Scheme introduced by the Corporation dt. 01.01.2018 and accordingly each of them stands discontinued from their contractual engagement. At this stage, the petitioners approached this court by filing of separate writ petitions and they have been allowed to continue, despite the Scheme, 2007 stands closed for all practical purposes w.e.f. 30.12.2017, under the interim order of this court dt. 21.12.2017, at present the petitioners are working as FSE.
9. Counsel for the petitioners submits that controversy has been examined where the FSEs were asking for regularization and for absorption in the service of the Corporation which although has been dismissed by certain High Courts, reference of which he has made in the petition but his submission is that matter is pending before the Apex Court and in the given circumstances there appears no reason for the respondents to discontinue the petitioners and at least the Corporation should await decision of the Apex Court and the petitioners be allowed to continue till then.
Page 9 of 20
10. Counsel further submits that the arrangement for conversion of FSE to the Chief Life Insurance Advisor(CLIA) Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.2018 is in derogation to the petitioner‟s status and it is nothing but conversion of fixed remunerative post into an agency which is not acceptable, after the petitioners rendered good number of years under the Scheme and served the Corporation with the best of their ability and have given their valuable years of their life serving as FSE, now having been asked to fill option for opting CLIA Scheme is a deliberate attempt to scuttle the right of the petitioners and this is nothing but a clear abuse of discretion and arbitrary exercise of power violative of Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution.
11. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the decision to close down the FSE Scheme is arbitrary, more so, when the Apex Court is ceased of the matter the decision of the Corporation for closure of the FSE Scheme is a direct interference in the judicial process and such decision cannot be said to be in the interest of the institution. More so, when the FSE Scheme has been made instrumental in procuring good business for the Corporation and there was no need for closure of the Scheme and this court can take a judicial notice that the decision has been taken by the Corporation with a vindictive attitude against the FSEs as they have approached the various High Courts for protection of their rights and livelihood on discontinuance from contractual engagement and these extraneous considerations have played a role in the purported decision of winding up of the Scheme and it is not a bona fide exercise of power and no material has been placed on record by the respondents where it could be prima facie established that there is some Page 10 of 20 basis/foundation for the Corporation in taking a decision for closure of the Scheme, 2007.
12. Counsel further submits that services of the petitioner have been continued for sufficient time and the work is of a perennial in nature, he has a legitimate expectation that his services would be made permanent in due course of time and at this fag end of his career he would not get any alternative job elsewhere and discontinuing the petitioner‟s contractual engagement will be depriving him of his livelihood guaranteed u/Art.21 of the Constitution. Indisputably, the action of the respondents is vindictive and tainted with mala fide intension and needs to be strongly deprecated by this court.
13. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and a preliminary objection has been raised as the engagements of the petitioners are purely of contractual in nature for a specific period and since the contract ceases by efflux of time having no legally enforceable right conferred to the petitioners under the law and after the Board of the respondent-Corporation has taken a policy decision in its 576th meeting held on 08.06.2017 to close the FSE Scheme, 2007 w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and administrative instructions have been issued to each of the respective Zonal heads for its implementation, all the existing FSEs, without any exception offered migration to the Chief Life Advisory Advisor(CLIA) w.e.f. 01.01.2018, no right of the petitioner either fundamental, legal or statutory has been violated. More so, it is not the case of the petitioner that the Corporation has either breached or violated the terms and conditions of engagement as governed under the Scheme, 2007.
Page 11 of 20
14. Counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner was engaged as FSE under the Scheme, 2007 purely on contractual basis and contract was renewed after examining the overall performance of the incumbent and on certain terms & conditions engagements were accepted by the petitioners at the stage of each renewable contract and the provisions of LIC of India(Staff) Regulations, 1960 are not applicable to the petitioners and no right shall confer on any candidate to claim or seek regularization or to become a member of the LIC of India(Staff) Regulations, 1960.
15. Counsel submits that it is after the decision being taken by the Board of the Corporation in its 576th meeting held on 08.06.2017 to close the FSE Scheme, 2007 w.e.f. 01.07.2017, in furtherance thereof it was an open offer for the FSEs without any exception for migration to the CLIA Scheme which was effective from 01.01.2018, on certain terms and conditions is open for acceptance on the terms provided, at least he has no right to question the decision of the Corporation, which has been taken by the Board in public interest and in the interest of the institution.
16. Counsel submits that it is a matter of record that post October, 2014 no fresh recruitment of FSEs has been conducted, and pursuant to the decision taken by the competent authority to close contractual appointments of such executives, the engagement of all those executives who are currently in service would stand ceased subject to choosing to exercise option of seeking a transition to the CLIA Scheme and accordingly there is no discrimination on the part of the respondent-Corporation between FSEs who were appointed prior in time or later.
Page 12 of 20
17. Counsel submits that the decision of the Board to close the FSE Scheme, 2007 w.e.f. 01.07.2017 is a policy decision and no malice has been imputed. It is a corrective decision of the Board after examining the holistic view of the existing Scheme, 2007 for its closure w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and there is no adversary to be attributable in the decision making process of the authority in taking policy decision to close the FSE Scheme, 2007 which is in its competence and cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative u/Art.14 & 21 of the Constitution of India as prayed.
18. I have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record.
Indisputably, the provision of LIC of India(Staff) Regulations, 1960 has no application to the persons who are engaged as FSEs under the Scheme, 2007 which is applicable to the whole time salaried employee, otherwise provided by the terms of any contract, agreement or letter of appointment. Regulation 5 provides classification of staff, Regulation 6 deals with appointment and promotion as provided under the Schedule I of appointment therein, Regulation 8 deals with the temporary staff appointed in class III and IV on temporary basis subject to special directions as may be issued by the Chairman from time to time.
19. In the present case, the FSEs are engaged under the Scheme, 2007 and the modified Scheme as on 15.06.2012 after incorporating all the changes in the scheme from inception, placed on record, Annexure-3 to the petition and instruction for implementation of the scheme has been annexed Annexure-2.
Page 13 of 20
Para 3 of the Scheme, 2007 deals with the nature of engagement, para 5 deals with the conditions of eligibility, para 6 deals with the mode of selection, para 9 and 11 deals with the training and practical training, the minimum business parameters laid down in para 15 and details of remuneration which is revisable year to year basis detailed in para 17, para 19 deals with leave, para 20 deals with the travelling expenses, at the same time para 23 deals with the termination of contract, para 24 deals with the continuity as a direct agent and para 26 deals with the renewal of contract.
This court considers appropriate to quote the relevant paragraphs of the Scheme, 2007 relevant for the purpose which read as under:
"3.Nature of Engagement:
The engagement shall be purely on Contractual Basis initially for a period of three years. The terms and conditions of engagement will be governed by LIC of India(Financial Services Executives) Scheme, 2007.
23. Termination of Contract:
In case a Financial Services Executive does not procure the stipulated minimum New Business in two successive quarters, then his/her contract shall be terminated forthwith without giving any notice to him/her. The Contract shall also be liable for being terminated, if the Financial Services Executive commits breach of any Statutory Provisions or is found to be indulging in activities detrimental to the interests of the Corporation provided however that, before termination of contract for reasons other than for minimum business parameters as stipulated elsewhere in the scheme, a Show Cause Notice shall be issued to the FSE. The engagement of Page 14 of 20 FSE shall remain suspended during the period of issuance of Show Cause Notice and final decision on the reply thereof. The Sr./Divisional Manager-in-charge of the Division shall be the Competent Authority for termination of contract on any of the grounds mentioned herein.
26. Renewal of Contract:
The contract can be extended for another term of one year and again for another year subject to performance and suitability. The minimum requirement of performance shall be that the Financial Services Executives should have received New Business Incentive for at least 1 Year out of 3 years. Once a Financial Services Executive procures the minimum New Business during the three year contract period as per stipulated norms and is Other wise found suitable, the period of Contract may be renewed with some increase in incentive and remuneration, which Chairman is authorized to decide."
20. The engagement of the members of FSE is in accordance with the Scheme, 2007 which is a complete code in itself regulates the terms and conditions of contract on which the FSE has been engaged and thus the engagement of the members of FSE is neither controlled nor regulated by the LIC of India(Staff) Regulations, 1960. The Scheme, 2007 clearly envisages that the appointment is a contractual appointment for three years renewable by two years further and the Scheme postulates continuance for seven years and details of remuneration to be paid in seventh year has been mentioned in the Scheme.
21. Be that as it may, the FSE has been appointed on contractual basis and the service having been extended upto sixth or seventh year does not change the nature and character of engagement Page 15 of 20 under the Scheme. As noted, the engagement of FSE is not an appointment under LIC of India(Staff) Regulations, 1960 which contemplates appointment in regular service in different category of staff as enumerated therein and their appointment on contract basis which is being enumerated under the Scheme, 2007 shall not give any right for absorption in the service of the Corporation or claim with reference to recruitment to any post.
22. The FSEs have filed writ petitions in various High Courts for their regularization in service and for absorption and to become a member of LIC of India(Staff) Regulations, 1960 and all the High Courts are consistent on the view that as FSEs have been engaged purely on contract basis under the Scheme, 2007, they are neither entitled for regularization nor claim for absorption and to become a member of the LIC of India(Staff) Regulations, 1960.
23. I am also of the view that the FSEs who were engaged purely on contract basis under the Scheme, 2007 which is a complete code in itself governing the terms & conditions and they are not entitled to claim any protection of the LIC of India(Staff) Regulations, 1960 and once their term of contract has expired either by efflux of time or otherwise, they have no right to continue on the post as FSEs in the Corporation.
24. The same question arose before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WA No.1707/2014 [Financial Service Executives Welfare Association & Anr. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.] and the Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment dt. 09.03.2015 finally observed that the appointments of FSEs are purely contractual in Page 16 of 20 nature which cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Art.14 of the Constitution having no right to claim absorption in the regular service of the Corporation. That matter travelled up to the Supreme Court at the instance of the Financial Service Executive Welfare Association in SLP No.14641/2015 and that was dismissed at the motion stage vide order dt. 09.03.2016.
25. Same is the view of the High Court of Patna in Letters of Patent Appeal No.751/2016 [Birendra Kumar vs. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.] decided on 02.05.2016, High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CWP 20117/2015 [All India LIC SMEs Group/Association(Regd.) v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.] decided on 03.06.2016, High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.4668/2016 [Jyoti vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.] decided on 14.07.2016, Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No.2169/2016 [Siddhartha Saha & Ors. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.] and WP(C) No.3314/2016[Subrata Das vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.] decided on 31.01.2017.
26. All the High Courts are consistent in its view that these are contractual appointments which are renewable at the sole discretion of the Corporation and as the incumbents were aware of the temporary nature of engagement which was coterminous with the period mentioned in the contract, the respondents-Corporation cannot be compelled to permit the petitioners to continue as FSEs in the manner contrary to the terms of the contract. That apart, the Gauhati High Court has taken note of the fact that after a conscious decision being taken by the Corporation to discontinue the Scheme, 2007, no further Page 17 of 20 right at least could confer with the FSEs who were appointed purely on contract basis on certain terms and conditions under the Scheme, 2007.
27. It is never the case of the petitioner that there is either a breach or violation of the terms of contract or the discretion to renew the contract, which solely vested with the Corporation is either being abused or the action of renewable being discriminatory by the Corporation amongst the engagement of FSEs under the Scheme, 2007 and this court is also of the considered view that the appointment being contractual & coterminous governed by the terms & conditions under the Scheme, 2007 and if the FSE is being allowed to continue that will be a clear violation of the terms of contract which may not be in conformity with the Scheme, 2007.
28. Counsel has further questioned the policy decision of the Board of the Corporation in its 576th meeting held on 08.06.2007 for closure of the Scheme, 2007 w.e.f. 01.07.2017 holding it to be arbitrary and abuse of discretion and mala fides are being alleged but no supporting material has been placed on record.
29. Although it is not the case of the petitioner that the policy decision of the Board is either without competence or authority under the law and in the limited scope of judicial review of this court u/Art.226 of the Constitution it may not be advisable to constitute the relative merits on the different schemes introduced by the authority, while interfering with the policy decision and ordinarily is not within the domain of the Court.
30. The court may be called upon to consider the validity of the policy when the challenge is made that a policy decision infringes Page 18 of 20 fundamental or legal rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Corporation as a statutory authority must be held to be within its competence to frame policy for fulfilment of the object for which it has been established and unless the policy framed is absolutely capricious and not being informed by any reason, it may not be advisable for the court to tinker with the policy decision of the authority merely because it feels another decision would have been better or fairer or more scientific or logical or wiser. The wisdom and advisability of the policies are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless it contravenes or in conflict to the statutory or constitutional provisions or is arbitrary or irrational or abuse of power which is not the case set up by the petitioner and mere allegation of policy decision being bad in law will not hold it to be bad or violative of Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution as prayed.
31. The Apex Court in the case of Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Delhi Administration reported in (2001) 3 SCC 635 has laid down the scope for judicial scrutiny and interference with the policy decision. It was held as under:
"18......It is well settled that the courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. Indeed, arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fide will render the policy unconstitutional. However, if the policy cannot be faulted on any of these grounds, the mere fact that it would hurt business interests of a party, does not justify invalidating the policy. In tax and economic Regulation cases, there are good reasons for judicial restraint, if not judicial deference, to judgment of the Page 19 of 20 executive. The courts are not expected to express their opinion as to whether at a particular point of time or in a particular situation any such policy should have been adopted or not. It is best left to the discretion of the State."
The Apex Court in its judgment reported in (2015) 2 SCC 796 [Census Commissioner v. R. Krishnamurthy] taking note of the various precedence has laid down the principles for intervention in the policy decisions of the authorities. It was held as under:-
"28. From the aforesaid pronouncement of law, it is clear as noon day that it is not within the domain of the courts to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise and acceptable or whether a better policy could be evolved. The court can only interfere if the policy framed is absolutely capricious or not informed by reasons or totally arbitrary and founded ipse dixit offending the basic requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution. In certain matters, as often said, there can be opinions and opinions but the court is not expected to sit as an appellate authority on an opinion."
32. In the instant case, the Board of the respondent-Corporation in its 576th meeting held on 08.06.2017 took a policy decision to close the FSE Scheme, 2007 w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and administrative instructions were issued to each of the subordinates for its proper implementation.
33. After having heard counsel for the parties and going through the decision of the Corporation, this court finds no error in the decision making process adopted by the Corporation and the policy decision of the Board of the respondent-Corporation in its 576th meeting dt. 08.06.2017 to close the Scheme, 2017 w.e.f. 01.07.2017 cannot be said to be arbitrary or offending the basic requirement of Art.14 of the Page 20 of 20 Constitution and may not be advisable for this court to sit as an appellate authority in examining the policy decision of the Corporation impugned by the petitioners in the instant proceedings.
34. Consequently, in my considered view the writ petitions are without substance and are accordingly dismissed. No cost.
CHIEF JUSTICE Certificate :- All corrections made in the judgment have been incorporated in the judgment Nihar