HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 13794 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Prakhar Srivastava, Advocate alongwith Sri Pramod Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Manish Goel, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Deepak Chaurasia, Advocate for Respondents-LIC. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Apprentice Development Officer with Respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India vide appointment letter dated 28.11.2019 and after successful completion of Apprenticeship, he was appointed as a Development Officer vide order dated 02.02.2020 and was posted in Meerut Division at Muzaffarnagar Branch. 3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondents, at the outset, submits that petitioner's performance for appraisal years ended on 31.03.2022, 31.03.2023 and 31.03.2024 was not found encouraging since his cost ratio has exceeded the prescribed limit of 35% in terms of Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 amended as Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2016 and that vires of same was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Munna Lal vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024:AHC:200075-DB. 4. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that petitioner has failed to improve his cost ratio and has also not represented against appraisals. He Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pramod K. Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : Siddharth Singhal Ankit Singh .....Petitioner(s) Life Insurance Corporation Of India And Another .....Respondent(s) also submitted that it was mentioned in communications dated 18.05.2022 and 16.05.2023 that it would be without prejudice to the right of Corporation to take any other action, if necessary, under said Rules and finally when cost ratio exceeded by more than 35% in three consecutive years, petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 13.05.2024 that in terms of Rules, 2009 as amended in 2016, why not his services be terminated. 5. The Court finds that aforesaid proceedings upto this stage were appropriate since on the face of it, the details mentioned in appraisal reports, appear to be correct and that petitioner has not submitted any representation against the same. 6. However, the Court further proceed to consider the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner has met with a road accident on 29.07.2023 and remained in hospital for about two months and he remained in 'Comma' for about three weeks. Petitioner is still advised to take rest. Petitioner has communicated to respondents in reply to show cause notice by a representation/ reply dated 03.06.2024 disclosing his medical condition and also requested that he may be provided alternative duty. However, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner, though aforesaid representation/ reply was duly received by Respondent-LIC and was communicated to Zonal Manager by communication dated 13.06.2024 by Senior Divisional Manager making a reference of road accident, still respondents proceeded to pass impugned order dated 07.06.2024 whereby petitioner's services were terminated without even taking note of health condition of petitioner. 7. The aforesaid approach appears to be contrary since not only it has to be taken note of health condition of petitioner but it appears to be against the motto of Respondent-LIC, i.e., "Zindagee Ke Sath Bhi Zindagee Ke Baad Bhi". It appears that in the present case respondents have apathy towards their own employee. May be the motto is for consumers of Respondent-LIC, still being part of larger family, it will equally apply to petitioner also. WRIA No. 13794 of 2025 2 8. The Court also takes note of other arguments of learned counsel for petitioner which he has made by referring the various provisions of Rules, 2009 as amended in 2016, specifically Rules 6(5), 7 and 15, however, at this stage the Court is not making any comment on it since Court is of the view that concerned respondent should reconsider the case taking note of health issue of petitioner by granting him an opportunity to explain his appraisal reports. It is also made clear that at this stage Court is not making any comment about appraisal reports of periods prior to accident. 9. In view of above, in the interest of justice and in peculiar facts and circumstances of present case, specifically considering the health condition of petitioner, impugned order dated 07.06.2024 is hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to concerned respondent to decide afresh. Petitioner is granted an opportunity to submit a detail reply to show cause notice within three weeks from today and subsequently on basis of reply, concerned respondent will take a fresh decision, preferably within three weeks thereafter. 10. With aforesaid observations/ directions, this writ petition is disposed of. September 15, 2025 AK WRIA No. 13794 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad