Patna High Court
Gopal Ji Sahay vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India & O on 20 March, 2017
Author: Shivaji Pandey
Bench: Shivaji Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4418 of 2016
===========================================================
Gopal Ji Sahay, Son of Late Hira Nand Sahay, Resident of Mohalla - Paijawa, Near
Walipur School, P.O. and P.S. Barh, District - Patna, Presently Working as
Administrative Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional office,
Jeevan Prakash, Uma Shankar Prasad Marg, Muzaffarpur, District - Muzaffarpur
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India through the Zonal Manager, Zonal Office,
Jeevan Deep Building, Exhibition Road, Patna
2. The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Zonal Office, Jeevan
Deep Building, Exhibition Road, Patna
3. The Regional Manager (Personnel & Industrial Relation) Life Insurance
Corporation of India, East Central Zonal Office, Jeevan Deep Building,
Exhibition Road, Patna
4. The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional
office, Krishna Bhawan, Deep Shikha Road, Bishwanath Nagar, Begusarai
5. The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional
office, Jeevan Prakash, Uma Shankar Prasad Marg, Muzaffarpur, District-
Muzaffarpur.
6. The Manager ( Estate & office Service ), Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Divisional office, Jeevan Prakash, Uma Shankar Prasad Marg, Muzaffarpur,
District - Muzaffarpur
.... .... Respondents
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anita Kumari
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 20-03-2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation.
2. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the action of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4418 of 2016 dt.20-03-2017
2/3
Life Insurance Corporation (for short "the L.I.C."), thereby he has
been directed to pay the amount of Rs.4,73,327/- after
proportionate reduction on written down value of the car, which the
petitioner has purchased while discharging the duty in the
Marketing Department of the L.I.C.
3. The short facts of this case are that the petitioner was
originally employed in the Administrative department and was
transferred in the Marketing department on 13.06.2013 and he
remained there for 2 ½ years. Again he was transferred to the
Administrative department vide Annexure-4 to the writ application.
4. While the petitioner was working in the marketing side
purchased a Car under the Conveyance Scheme VI (Revised) dated
7.10.2006. Normally, the posting in the marketing side would be five years, during that period the Officer is entitled to purchase a Car and on his transfer to other department he is required to purchase the same in the written down value. As the petitioner remained in Marketing department for 2 ½ years, thereafter transferred to the Administrative department, the Office has asked him to deposit Rs. 4,73,327/- as the written down value.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that written Patna High Court CWJC No.4418 of 2016 dt.20-03-2017 3/3 down value has been calculated on the basis of 2 ½ years, whereas written down value of car should be calculated on the basis of 5 years as normally posting in the Marketing department is of 5 years. The L.I.C. should fix the value of the car at the written down value accordingly.
6. Learned counsel for the L.I.C. submitted that in terms of the scheme if a person purchases a car and when he goes back to other department such as Administrative department he will have to purchase the said car at the written down value so much so that no any fixed time has been prescribed for the posting in the Marketing department as he remained in the Marketing department for 2 ½ years and still the car is in his personal possession, the claim of fixing the value of the car at the written down value of five years is not sustainable in law.
7. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order. Hence, this writ application is dismissed.
(Shivaji Pandey, J) pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R. CAV DATE N/A. Uploading Date 24.03.2017 Transmission N/A. Date