ANWAAR HUSSAIN. J. This Intra-Court Appeal is directed against judgment dated 03.11.2020 passed by learned Judge-in-Chambers who dismissed Wilt Petition No.7285/2014 filed by the appellant and others.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed is Area Manager (Category: "A") in State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vide appointment letter dated 10.12.2012.
Respondent No.2 issued a letter to respondent No.3 and all other Regional Chiefs and Zonal Heads to review the business performance of Area Managers for the year 2013 and after - review of business performance of petitioner's area for the year 2013, respondent No.3 issued letter dated 07.02.2014 to the appellant with direction to complete 35% of his annual First Year Premium ("FYP") upto 31.03.2014 otherwise the appellant will be terminated or downgraded and ultimately, respondent No.3 vide letter dated 06.05.2014 downgraded the appellant from Category "A"
"Category "B". The appellant along with others challenged the said order in Writ Petition No.7285/2014, which was dismissed by learned Judge-in-Chambers vide consolidated judgment dated 3-11-2020 passed in Writ Petition, No.8214/2019. The appellant has impugned the said judgment through the instant ICA.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order of downgrading from Category "A" to Category "B" passed by respondent No.3 is alien to State Life Employees (Service)
Regulations, 1973 ("the Regulations") inasmuch as only post of Area Manager exists and there is no sub-categories of "A", "B" and "C" envisaged thereunder.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents states that the matter of downgrading of Area Managers has already been settled by this Court in I. C.A. No.29469/2019 titled "Naeem Akhtar Ansar and another v. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and others. Adds that the appellant was appointed as Area Manager in Category "A" vide appointment letter dated 10.12.2012 and by virtue of terms and conditions thereof, he can also be downgraded. In this regard, he has referred to clause 6 of the appointment letter. Avers that the appellant accepted the appointment letter in the year 2012 and is now estopped from backing out the same.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed the case as if there is a conflict between the contract of service of the appellant whereby he has been appointed as Area Manager (Category "A") and the Regulations. We have perused the regulations and found that the post of Area Manager is stipulated in Regulation No.4 of the Regulations, however, the competent authority has reserved for itself the power to review the performance of its employees including Area Manager and therefore, can always alter terms and conditions thereof. It is otherwise in line with the authority of an employer to downgrade an employee based on his performance evaluation.
Regulation 4(ii) of the Regulations contemplates that there will be two' categories of Area Managers, i.e., Area Manager on Special Basis and Area Manager on Ordinary Basis and salaries of both the categories of the Area Managers will also be different inasmuch as the Area Manager on Special Basis has been provided with Pay Scale whereas the Area Manager on Ordinary Basis is entitled to fix pay only. This fact alone refutes the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the Regulations do not envisage categories for the post of Area Managers and only one type of Area Manager is mentioned therein. Perusal of Regulation 4(ii)(c)(1)&(2) further reveals that an Area Manager will be required to meet such performance standards regarding new business, persistency and other operational factors and his performance will be reviewed by the Zonal Head on a six monthly basis or for such shorter period as deemed necessary by the Board. The said Regulation further contemplates that if performance of the Area Manager,, on review, is found to be short of prescribed standards, the Zonal Head may terminate his service after giving him three months notice or three months pay in lieu thereof or may take such measures including but not limited to, reduction, curtailment or withdrawal of his emoluments or perquisites or all such measures together. This fact also negates the assertion of learned counsel for the appellant that sub-categories of the post of Area Manager do not exist. In fact, even if there is no sub-category of Area Manager, Regulation No.4 itself envisages the power with the competent authority to take such measures as it deems fit to ensure better performance of its employees working as Area Manager and prima facie making appointments in different categories as Area Managers in itself is a method of monitoring and evaluating performance of such employee. Admittedly, the appellant has been downgraded on the basis of performance evaluation and under the law, he could be accordingly dealt with by the authority. Matter can be examined from another angle as well. The Regulations are general rules of governing terms and conditions of service of employees like the appellant who shall also be subject to any special condition, which may be agreed at the beginning of their service and in the instant case, the appellant clearly accepted his employment as Area Manager Category "A" with the stipulation that he can be downgraded, hence, is estopped to back out of such agreed terms and conditions of his service. Even otherwise, the category of the appellant has merely been re-classified, which was subject to completion of FYP quota during the year 2014, meaning thereby that if the appellant completed the quota for the FYP during the said year, the impugned letter will deem to be recalled in the next year 2015 and he will regain his Category "A". There is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant completed the FYP during the year 2014 or his category was revised as Category 'A' in the next year 2015. In the circumstances, the competent authority has exercised his powers in accordance with law. We found no illegality in the impugned judgment passed by learned Judge-in-Chambers. No interference is warranted.
7. In light of what has been discussed above, this ICA has no merit. The same is accordingly dismissed.