2025:JHHC:24806 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1021 of 2018 Tarun Kumar, aged about 50 years, S/o- Shri Yogendra Prasad Singh, resident of Tara Sadan, Ramnagar, Near East Rly Cabin, P.O. & P.S.-Chutia, Dist. Ranchi. ......Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Manager (P& IR) DM, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeevan Prakash, Hazaribagh Divisional Office, Julu Park, P.O. Box no. 5, Hazaribagh, Pin Code- 825301. 3. The Executive Director (Personnel), Life Insurance Corporation of India Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg, P.B. No. 19953, Mumbai 400021, 4. The Secretary (Financial Services) Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, 3rd Floor Jeevan Deep building Sansad Marg New Delhi-110001. ...Respondents W.P.(S) No. 1513 of 2018 1. Pritam Lal Agarwal, aged 49 years son of Late Sagar Lal Agarwal ,resident of 306, Shadeo Enclave, Aryapuri Ratu Road, P.O. Main Branch & P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi. 2. Arbind Kumar Mishra, aged 52 years, son of Sri Sidhnath Mishra, Resident of Flat No 403, South x zone P.O.- Chirachas, P.S.-Chas, district-Bokaro.pin code 827013. 3. Niranjan Kumar Yadav, aged 44 years, son of Late Sukar Gope, Resident of Kanibazar, Munkabagicha, P.O. and P.S.-Hazaribagh ....Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Manager(P&IR)DM, Jeevan Prakash, Hazaribagh Divisional office, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Julu Park, P.O.box no -5, Hazaribagh-pin code 825301. 3. The Executive Director (Personnel), Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg, Life Insurance Corporation of India, P.B.No. 19953, Mumbai 400021. 4. The Secretary( Financial services )Department of Financial services, Ministry of Finance, 3rd Floor Jeevan deep building, sansad marg, New Delhi-110001 ..Respondents. --- 2025:JHHC:24806 2 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Adv. [ in both cases] For the Resp.-State : Mr. Uttam Kr. Das, A.C to G.P.-VI [ W.P.(S) No. 1021 of 2018] A.C to G.P.-I For the Resp.-LIC : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate -- 13/07.08.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions are same and similar, with consent of the parties, both were heard together and disposed of by this common order. W.P.(S) No. 1021 of 2018 3. The instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner for the following reliefs: For quashing the letter no. CO/PER/ ER- A/147/2017 dated 06.01.2017 (Annexure-6) issued by Respondent No. 3 and also Letter no. HDO/P&IR dated 24.01.2018 by which the petitioner has been communicated that his basic pay and salary has been reduced from Rs. 20,210/- to Rs. 16,850/-with effect from 08.06.2009 and moreover to recover arrears also in terms of Annexure 7, from the date of joining from 08.06.09, i.e. retrospectively. W.P.(S) No. 1513 of 2018 4. The instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners for the following reliefs: For quashing the Letter No.CO/PER/ER- A/147/2017dated 06.01.2017 (Annexure-6) issued by Respondent No-2, and also Letter No.HDO/P&IR dated 24.01.2018, by which the Petitioner No 1 has been communicated that his basic pay has been reduced from Rs 16,060/- to Rs 15,270/-with effect from 1.5.2009, and moreover the respondents have made deductions from the salary of the petitioner no. 1, from the month of February 2018 in terms of 2025:JHHC:24806 3 Annexure- 6 from the date of his joining, i.e. retrospectively. Petitioner No.2 basic pay has been reduced from Rs 16850/- to Rs 14510 w.e.f 8.6.09 and petitioner No 3 basic pay also has also been reduced from 15270-/ to rupees 14510 with effect from 27.11.2009. 5. By relying upon the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents in W.P(S) No. 1021 of 2018, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the Petitioner submitted an application dated 20.01.2011 before the Senior Divisional Manager of the Corporation stating therein that the Last Pay Certificate (LPC) issued by the AFCAO does not reflect Compensation in Lieu of Quarter (CILQ) and Living Out Ration Allowance (LORA). The basic pay of the petitioner was re-fixed at Rs.17,690/-w.e.f. 08.06.2009. Further, the graduation increment was allowed and basic pay was fixed at Rs.19,370.00. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 04.05.2011 of the Corporation. A perusal of the chart showing Fixation of pay would show that the Ration allowance (LORA) and CILQ were also taken into consideration while fixing the pay scale. Further, the revised pay scale was made effective from 08.06.2009. It has also been submitted that the salary of the petitioner was again re-fixed at the Basic pay of Rs.20,210.00 as per C.O. Circular Ref:CO/PER/ER- A/009/2012 dated 17.11.2012 and re-fixation was done w.e.f. 08.06.2009. The petitioner was Informed vide letter dated 27.12.2012 and Branch office was also directed to make arrear payment to the petitioner. The chart would further show that CLIQ and LORA also form part of the pay scale. 6. It has also been submitted that the salary and allowances payable to the ex-servicemen re-employed in the Corporation are guided by the Rules/Regulations framed by 2025:JHHC:24806 4 the Central Government from time to time as also various circulars issued in this regard. The pay fixation of ex- servicemen is done as per the instructions as contained in OM Nos.105 (10)/Ins. IV/80 dated 09.05.1988 and OM No.4/1/2010-SCT (B) dated 22.11.2010 and circulars ZD/687/ASP/89 dated 02.06.1989 and CO/Per/ER- A/009/2012 dated 17.11.2012. 7. From the averments made in the counter affidavit it further reveals that the Central Government issued guidelines for fixation of pay of ex-servicemen / ex- ECOs/SSCOs, reemployed in Public Sector Banks etc. on or after 01.01.2006. The guidelines provide that in respect of re-employment taking place on or after 01.01.2006, pre- retirement pay for those who retired after 01.01.2006, means the pay in the pay band plus grade pay but inclusive of non-practicing allowance (NPA) if any, last drawn before retirement. The said guidelines were circulated to all public sector banks/insurance companies to strictly follow the same. Based on the circular of the Central Government, the circular CO/Per/ER-A/147/2017 dated 06.01.2017 was issued by the corporation to re-fix the salary of ex-servicemen appointed in LICI on or after 01.01.2006. 8. Based on the aforesaid circulars, it is evident that the pay scale of the petitioner was re-fixed and certain allowances not payable to the petitioner after his re- employment in the Corporation were withdrawn. The petitioner was getting these allowances while he was in the service of the Air Force; however, on his re-employment in the Corporation, he was not entitled for those allowances. The elements of last pay drawn by the petitioner was 2025:JHHC:24806 5 relevant for the purpose of comparing the same with the pay fixed in the Corporation. The petitioner was entitled to get his pay fixed in the corporation at par or more than the pay he was getting in the Air Force as per the circular dated 02.06.1989 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). 9. Thus, there is no hesitation in holding that the respective petitioners were not entitled for the allowances which they were getting in Air Force, however, on the basis of the claim made by the petitioners, certain allowances not admissible in the LICI were also included while fixing the salary of the petitioner. 10. This issue has been settled by this Court that pursuant to reemployment, the ex-servicemen are not entitled to get the allowances admissible in the military service from the Corporation. In this regard, the judgment of this Court in C.W.J.C. NO.3414/2000 (R) and Judgment dated 30.10.2009 passed by a division bench of this Hon'ble Court in LPA No.331/2009 may be referred. The Division Bench of this Court observed as follows: “In addition to the detailed reasons assigned by the Learned Single Judge for dismissing the writ petition, the fact remains that the appellant had accepted the terms and conditions of service, which was applicable on the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Hence, it is difficult to appreciate as to how the appellant can claim Ration Allowance which he was drawing as Serviceman while he was in the Air Force. Since, the Rules of the Life Insurance Corporation of India envisages payment only with regard to pay fixation and such allowances are to be granted only if he is drawing lesser pay than his previous service, the claim towards Ration Allowance could not have been entertained. The appellant, admittedly, is not drawing lesser pay than what he was drawing in the Air Force and hence the writ petition claiming additional payment towards Ration Allowance has rightly been rejected by the Learned Single Judge." 11. As a matter of fact, Civil Review No. 11 / 2009 was also filed to review the judgment dated 30.10.2009 passed in L.P.A. No.331/2009 but the same was rejected by a division of this Court vide judgment dated 28.04.2016. 2025:JHHC:24806 6 12. The Respondents are correct in saying that the petitioner has been granted pay protection and it is not the case of the petitioner that his pay in the LICI is below than the pay he was getting at the time of his release from the Force. 13. Likewise, by relying upon counter affidavit in W.P(S) No. 1513 of 2018, learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that the petitioners requested the Corporation for refixation in view of the revised pay certificate issued by the Force in view of the VIth pay revision. The Revised Last Pay Certificates were issued much after the petitioners were relieved from the Force and had already joined the Corporation. The petitioners once joined in the UCI they came to be governed by the Rules/Regulations/Service Conditions on which they were appointed. The petitioners were not entitled to get their pay revised on the basis of revised LPC issued in view of 6th Pay Revision. 14. It has been contended that the petitioners' pay is protected as per the definition of pay as per the DFS, MoF, Govt. of India guidelines vide OM No.4/3/2012- Welfare dated 17.02.2014 to bring uniformity among all the ex-servicemen re-employed in various public sectors institutions such as RBI, PFIS, PSICS, GIPSA, IRDA and PFRDA. The action of the respondents is in accordance with law and cannot be termed malafide. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that Kerela High Court has decided this issue in favour of the employee; however, from the record it appears that on same and similar issue, the Division Bench of this Court has decided the issue involved in this writ application in favour of the Respondents. 2025:JHHC:24806 7 16. During course of argument, the Respondent has also submitted before this Court that similar issue is also pending before Hon’ble Apex Court; as such, the case may be adjourned sine die. 17. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents relying upon the counter affidavit submits that the issue has already been decided by learned Division Bench of this Court. He further submits that the issue before Kerela High Court was different. 18. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, on the one hand, the Division Bench of this Court has decided the case in favour of Respondent-Corporation, wherein it has held as under: “ We find no substance in this appeal, which is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.6.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3414 of 2000(R), by which the learned Single Judge had been pleased to dismiss the writ application filed by the petitioner-appellant herein, who had claimed Ration Allowance on his re-employment by the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The petitioner-appellant retired as a Sergeant from the Indian Air Force and had applied for the re-employment on the post of Typist, which was advertised by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, meant for the Ex-servicemen quota, and was selected. The petitioner-appellant was offered appointment on condition that he would draw the salary as per the Rules applicable on the employees of the Corporation and as per Clause 3.1 of a Circular, the principle was laid down for pay fixation on reemployment of the ex-servicemen, which was to be fixed at the minimum of the scale in which he joined. It is not the case of the appellant that he is drawing less salary than what he was drawing as ex-serviceman, so as to draw comparison by claiming salary, allowance and other additional allowance. Taking that into account, the learned Single Judge was pleased to reject the writ petition of the petitioner, claiming the Ration Allowance. In addition to the detailed reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge for dismissing the writ petition, the fact remains that the appellant had accepted the terms and conditions of service, which was applicable on the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Hence, it is difficult to appreciate as to how the appellant can claim the Ration Allowance which he was drawing as Serviceman while he was in the Air Force. Since the Rules of the Life Insurance Corporation of India envisages payment only with regard to pay fixation and such allowances are to be granted only if he is drawing lesser pay than his previous service, the claim towards Ration Allowance could not have been entertained. The appellant, admittedly, is not drawing less salary than what he was drawing in the Air Force and hence the writ petition claiming additional payment towards Ration Allowance has rightly been rejected by the learned Single Judge. 2025:JHHC:24806 8 The appeal thus has no substance and hence it is dismissed at the admission stage itself.” 19. The facts in these cases are same and similar. Accordingly, both these writ applications are hereby disposed of relying upon the judgment of Division Bench, and no relief can be granted to these petitioners at this stage. However, the Petitioners would be at liberty that if the similar issue which is pending before Hon’ble Apex Court and if the same is decided in favour of claimants; then they may approach before the authority showing that their case is fully covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, if so advised. (Deepak Roshan, J.) jk