Kerala High Court
Thampy Kuruvila vs United India Insurance Company Ltd on 7 March, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 16571 OF 2015
PETITIONER:
THAMPY KURUVILA
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.LATE SRI.KURUVILLA V.T, RESIDING AT VANNILAM
HOUSE, HOUSE NO.54, UMA NAGAR, OLLUKKARA P.O.,
THRISSUR
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ
SMT.VINEETHA B.
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., HEAD
OFFICE , WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI - 600014
2 DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.
LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, HOSPITAL ROAD,
KOCHI - 682 011.
ADDL. R3 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
(ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA - 7837/15
DATED 15/6/2015)
BY ADV.
SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR, SC, R1 & R2
SRI.P.L.VENUKUMAR, ADDL.R3
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.16571 of 2015
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C)No. 16571 of 2015
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of March, 2024
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was working as Deputy Manager under the respondent Company and was drawing pay on Scale III during 2009. During 2009-10, a new scheme called Performance Linked Incentive (for short 'PLI') Scheme was formulated and promulgated by the first respondent. Based on the said scheme, high performing units of the company were granted a share of the profit of the company. This amount was divided pro-rata between the employees including the officers of the unit based on their basic pay. Ext.P1 is the copy of Performance Linked Incentive Scheme, 2009. W.P.(C) No.16571 of 2015 3 Based on Ext.P1, and the performance of the Regional Office at Kochi where the petitioner was working, the petitioner was awarded the Performance Linked Incentive payment for the year 2009-2010 is the submission. However, the list of eligible offices for the said year was published only very late and by that time, during 2010, the petitioner was already transferred to Trissur Divisional Office is the further submission. For the year 2010-11, the Divisional Office at Trissur was not entitled to PLI payment. Later, the Divisional Office at Trissur was bifurcated to Divisional Office 1 and 2. The petitioner continued with Divisional Office 1 is the submission. The list of offices eligible for PLI under Ext.P1 for the financial years 2011-12 and 2012-13 was not published at that time is the submission. Meanwhile, the petitioner retired from service under the Golden Gate Scheme W.P.(C) No.16571 of 2015 4 promulgated by the respondent company. Ext.P2 is the office order relieving the petitioner under the Golden Gate Scheme. It is submitted that, 28.03.2013 was the last working day of the financial year 2012- 13 and as such, the petitioner had worked with the respondent till the last date of the financial year 2012-13. It is submitted that the list of offices entitled to be granted PLI payment for the year 2011-12 was published after the retirement of the petitioner as evident by Ext.P3. Divisional Office, Trissur (un-birfurcated) is included at Sl. No. 429 in Ext.P3 list. Similarly, the office of the petitioner, Divisional Office 1, Trissur, was included in the list of PLI winning offices for the year 2012-13 also as evident by Ext.P4 is the further submission. Divisional Office 1, Trissur is at 274 in Ext.P4. But it is submitted that the petitioner who was part and parcel of the said unit during the PLI winning years W.P.(C) No.16571 of 2015 5 was not paid any Incentive. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation. The same is also not considered is the grievance. It is also submitted that the person similarly placed as the petitioner was already paid the incentive. Therefore, this writ petition is filed with the following prayers:
"(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, commanding the respondents to pay the petitioner amounts due to him towards Performance Linked Incentive for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13 with interest at the rate of 12% from the dates on which the said amounts are due till date of actual payment;
(ii) grant such other relief as may be prayed for and the court may deem fit to grant, and
(iii) grant the costs of this Writ Petition."[SIC]
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.W.P.(C) No.16571 of 2015 6
3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in this writ petition. The Standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 takes me through Annexure -
6 which is the modifications in the PLI Scheme 2009 for the year 2011-12 and onwards. Clause 4 of Annexure - 6 is extracted hereunder:
"As the Scheme clearly says that "The awardee should be an employee of any Public Sector Insurance Companies (including AICL,GIC, & GIPSA) at the time of payment of incentive or should have retired from the Company after attaining the age of 60, the following officials are not eligible for PLI - Officials who ceased to the employees of the Company under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), Retirement under Golden Hand Shake, and Resignation. Death cases would be treated on par with cases of retirement after attaining the age of Superannuation. Further, exception cases in this regard, if any encountered, shall be decided by the CMD."
4. From the above, it is clear that the W.P.(C) No.16571 of 2015 7 officials who ceased to the employees of the Company under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), Retirement under the Golden Hand Shake, and Resignation are not eligible for PLI. It is submitted that the petitioner was retired under the Golden Hand Shake Scheme. If that be the case, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit as per Annexure - 6. There is force in the argument of the respondents. In such circumstances, there is no merit in this writ petition.
Therefore, this Writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE nvj W.P.(C) No.16571 of 2015 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16571/2015 PETITIONER EXHIBITS P1- TRUE COPY OF PERFORMANCE LINKED INCENTIVE SCHEME 2009 P2- TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO10060 PER 09:2012-13 DATED 28.3.2013 P3- TRUE COPY OF LIST OF OFFICES WHICH WON ;LI FOR 2011-12 P4- TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.
HO:PMS:CIR:2014 DATED 8.8.2014
P5- TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION
DATED 20.2.2015 BEFORE THE
RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE