Sanjay Kumar vs L.I.C Of India & Ors
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010707022013
+ LPA 303/2013
SANJAY KUMAR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Taiyyab Khan Salmani,
Ms. Purva Kumari, Ms. Prakriti Pandey, Ms.
Khushboo and Ms. Annam Wasay, Advs.
versus
L.I.C OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Meghna Mital and Ms.
Vanita, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
ORDER (ORAL)
% 31.08.2026
The matter is being taken up today as 27 August 2026 was
declared as a Holiday.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against judgment dated
31 January 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP
(C) 2301/2010, whereby the said writ petition has been dismissed.
2. We have heard Mr. Taiyyab Khan Salmani, learned Counsel for
the appellant and Ms. Meghna Mital, learned Counsel for the
respondents.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
LPA 303/2013 Page 1 of 6
3. The appellant was appointed as an Apprentice Development
1 2
Officer by the Life Insurance Corporation of India . Paras 2 and 10
of the appointment letter read thus:
“2. PROBATIONARY PERIOD:
You shall be on probation initially for a period of twelve months
from the date of your joining duties as a probationer, but the
Corporation may, in its sole discretion, extend your probationary
period, provided that the total probationary period including the
extended probationary period shall not exceed 24 months counted
from the commencement of the probationary appointment. During
the probationary period (which includes extended probationary
period, if applicable) you shall be liable to be discharged from the
services of the Corporation without any notice and without any
cause being assigned.
10. MINIMUM BUSINESS:
i) During the probationary period you shall secure through the
agents recruited at your instance minimum completed life business
of Rs. 3.5 crores yielding a Scheduled First Year Premium Income
of not less than Rs. 10.00 lacs provided, however, that in case the
pay and/or allowance admissible to you, under Clause I are
increased during the period, the minimum business and the
premium income which you should secure shall be increased
proportionately.
ii) The minimum business set out in (i) shall be spread over
not less than 550 lives and shall be secured regularly through a
network of dependable agencies.
iii) You will be required to recruit minimum of 35 agents out of
which 35 agents should have become active, 35 agents should
individually have put in during that period the minimum business
required of them in an agency year according to Rule (9) of the
LIC of India (Agents) Rules, 1972 and 15 agents should become
Productive agents i.e one who has completed either at least 20 lives
or 12 lives with Scheduled First Year Premium Income of Rs.
1,00,000 in the agency year.
iv) If your probationary period is extended, you shall secure
1
“ADO”, hereinafter
2
“LIC”, hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
LPA 303/2013 Page 2 of 6
during the extended period such business as may be intimated to
you.”
4. On the ground that the appellant had failed to bring him the
necessary minimum business as required by para 10 of the
appointment letter, the probationary period of the appellant was not
extended and his services were terminated on 16 December 2008.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached this Court by
means of WP (C) 2301/2010.
6. Among others, one of the contentions of the appellant was that,
in fact, during the said period, owing to recession, none of the ADOs
had achieved the requisite target. The appellant submitted that he had
been singled out for differential treatment.
7. The learned Single Judge has reproduced, in para 4 of the
impugned judgment, the following chart representing the performance
of various ADOs:
Performance (from probation to 15-12-2008) No. of Count
No of
policies
Agents
rec.
Schedule
FPI
Qual.
Agents
Prod
Agents
Target
achieved
Target
550
Target
35
Target
10 lacs
Target
35
Target
15
App
cost
rate
CR
Sl.
No.
Name
(Sh./Ms.)
CODE BR
CODE
Dt of Prob. Conf. due
on
Action
1 Manoj
Kumar
5206 11E,
SSO
17.12.2007 17.12.2008 106 34 6.12 1 1 Nil 25.04 Outstanding Confirmed
2 Sh. Kirti 5211 123,
SSO
17.12.2007 17.12.2008 130 51 15.8 5 11 1 9.87 Outstanding Confirmed
3 Sh.
Rajesh
5313 123,
SSO
17.12.2007 17.12.2008 175 35 7.51 2 3 1 20.77 Outstanding Confirmed
4 Sh.
Manoj
Kumar
5219 12K 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 243 30 10.4 6 4 1 15.54 Outstanding Confirmed
5 U P
Singh
5221 12L 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 340 20 7.7 7 2 Nil 20.26 Outstanding Confirmed
6 Sh. Sajal 5209 123 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 195 28 6.51 1 3 Nil 23.96 Outstanding Confirmed
7 Sh.
Praveen
Prakash
5194 116 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 88 26 5.69 0 0 Nil 27.42 Outstanding Confirmed
8 S K
Gautam
5197 326 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 50 16 2.23 0 0 Nil 69.96 Average Extended
9 Maneesh
Khatri
5198 327 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 71 21 3.94 0 0 Nil 39.59 Well above
average
Extended
10 Amit
Kumar
5200 12D 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 84 18 2.07 0 0 Nil 75.36 Outstanding Extended
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
LPA 303/2013 Page 3 of 6
11 Abhishek
Kumar
5201 12D 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 93 31 3.55 1 0 Nil 43.34 Outstanding Extended
12 Sh. Rajiv
Rajnaj
5202 11B,
SSO
17.12.2007 17.12.2008 75 19 2.03 4 1 Nil 76.85 Well above
average
Extended
13 Ms.
Anshita
Kale
5203 11B,
SSO
17.12.2007 17.12.2008 62 15 2.61 1 0 Nil 59.77 Well above
average
Extended
14 Sh.
Ritesh
Sagar
5204 11B,
SSO
17.12.2007 17.12.2008 98 9 3.64 2 2 Nil 42.86 Well above
average
Extended
15 Sh. Amit
Kumar
Dahiya
5208 11L 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 118 16 6.89 3 2 Nil 22.64 Average Extended
16 Sanjay
Kumar
5199 327 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 53 9 1.74 1 0 Nil 123% Below
average
Terminated
17 SH. MS
Brijwal
5215 12C 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 20 7 0.74 1 0 Nil 213% Average Terminated
18 Gajendra
Singh
5216 12J 17.12.2007 17.12.2008 3 2 0.47 0 0 Nil 3275% Outstanding Terminated
8. From a perusal of the aforesaid chart, we find that none of the
persons named in the said chart achieved the requisite 550 lives
insurance during one year. However, the learned Single Judge has, in
paras 5 and 6 of the impugned order, noted thus:
“5. A reading of the aforesaid chart shows that indubitably the
petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of bringing in
business as per clause 10 of his appointment letter. The petitioner
was below the mark whereas 15 other persons achieved the
necessary business for the respondent No.1-corporation and
therefore their probationary periods were extended and they were
subsequently confirmed. The petitioner as also two other persons,
namely, Sh. M.S. Brijwal and Sh. Gajendra Singh were terminated
from services during the probationary period on account of failure
to bring in the requisite business.
6. The contention of the petitioner that he has been
discriminated as against other persons who did not bring in the
necessary business but were confirmed is therefore incorrect in
view of the chart reproduced hereinabove .”
(Emphasis supplied)
9. It appears that the learned Single Judge was not correct in
observing that 15 other persons whose services were continued had
achieved the requisite target. None of the persons named in the table
have achieved 550 life insurance policies during the required year.
10. On the Court querying in this regard, Ms. Meghna Mital
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
LPA 303/2013 Page 4 of 6
submits that the appellant’s performance was inferior to those whose
terms have been extended.
11. The appellant’s services were not discontinued on the ground of
unsatisfactory performance but on the ground that he had not brought
in the required minimum business.
12. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge ought to
have considered the appellant’s submission that other ADOs, who had
also not performed up to par, were continued. The finding to the
contrary, in paras 5 and 6 of the impugned judgment, appears to be in
conflict with the table extracted by the learned Single Judge himself.
13. In that view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to quash and
set aside the impugned judgment dated 31 January 2013. WP (C)
2301/201 accordingly stands remitted to the learned Single Judge for
consideration afresh.
14. We make it clear that, beyond what we have said here, we have
not made any observations on the merits of the dispute. It would be
open to both sides to advance all submissions before the learned
Single Judge when the matter is taken up.
15. Needless to say, the de novo proceedings would be
uninfluenced by the judgment under challenge.
16. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to
costs.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
LPA 303/2013 Page 5 of 6
17. As this is a writ petition of 2010, we direct both sides to appear
before the learned Single Judge on 28 September 2026. Neither side
would be entitled to seek any adjournment on the said date.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
VINOD KUMAR, J.
AUGUST 31, 2026 /aky
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
LPA 303/2013 Page 6 of 6