Anirban Kumar Ghosh vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Anirban Kumar Ghosh, a Probationary Development Officer with Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), challenged a communication dated August 26, 2020, demanding a refund of Rs. 1,67,109.25. This amount comprised remuneration paid during his absence from duty and Rs. 25,000/- from a service bond. The petitioner was appointed in November 2018, with his headquarters at Krishnanagar and an area of operation limited to Krishnanagar-II Branch. He claimed to have worked online from his residence in Barrackpore due to the COVID-19 lockdown from March 2020. LIC contended that he left his headquarters without permission, failed to report for duty physically despite repeated requests, and recruited agents outside his designated area. The petitioner resigned on August 17, 2020, citing the pandemic as a reason for not being able to travel to Krishnanagar.

Held

The Court held that the impugned communication directing the petitioner to refund the remuneration paid to him for the period of his absence from duty is bad in law and is set aside. The Court reasoned that while the petitioner's absence was unauthorized, the service regulations of LIC do not contain any provision for the recovery of remuneration once paid to an employee. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner did not perform his duties as required and therefore could not claim salary for that period, but emphasized the absence of a codified regulation for such recovery. The Court also noted that the respondent's submission about opening a floodgate of claims was not applicable as only the petitioner was absent. However, the Court held that the petitioner is obliged to refund the amount indicated in the service bond along with statutory tax, as he resigned during his probationary service tenure and is bound by its terms. The Court directed LIC to accept the petitioner's resignation and issue a No Objection Certificate within a fortnight of the refund of the service bond amount and statutory tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive remuneration for the period he remained physically absent from his designated headquarters and area of operation, despite performing duties online from a different location during the COVID-19 lockdown. This issue turns on the interpretation of the petitioner's letter of appointment and the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that due to the lockdown, physical attendance was impossible, but he continued his duties online, recruited agents, and provided business. He contended that LIC's service rules do not provide for the refund of remuneration already paid and that the demand for refund is bad in law. He also sought release of his arrear salary and a No Objection Certificate. Revenue/State's (LIC's) arguments: LIC argued that the petitioner left his headquarters without permission, failed to report for duty, and operated outside his appointed area. They contended that he did not perform his duties as required and therefore was not entitled to remuneration for the period of absence. LIC also argued that the petitioner misled the court regarding agent recruitment and that all other Development Officers attended office on rotation. LIC conceded that there is no specific provision in service regulations for refunding salary paid, but argued that the petitioner was wrongly credited remuneration as he did not attend office.