A group of development officers from the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) has urgently approached the Calcutta High Court, highlighting a critical conflict between their mandatory sales targets and extended election duties assigned by the Election Commission.
LIC Officers Cite 'Peculiar Service Condition' in Plea
The officers, represented by the National Federation of Insurance Field Workers of India (Eastern Zone), filed their plea on Friday. Their primary grievance centers on a compulsory 60-day stint as Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) in various districts, which they argue severely disrupts their core professional responsibilities.
Their advocate explained the high-stakes nature of their employment terms to the court. "We have a peculiar service condition that if our salary is 100 annually, we have to get a premium of minimum Rs 170," he submitted. The consequences of failing to meet these premium collection targets are severe: a deduction of two increments in the first year, followed by termination in the subsequent year.
Election Duty Deployment Clashes With Financial Year-End
The timing of the election duty creates an impossible situation for the officers. The court was informed that the deployment lasts until February 14, leaving them with barely over a month to scramble and meet their annual targets before the financial year concludes on March 31.
Justice Krishna Rao, hearing the matter, permitted the federation to file its case and listed it for hearing. "If it doesn't come up next week, then mention," Justice Rao directed, acknowledging the urgency of the matter.
The plea outlined the practical difficulties faced by the officers. For instance, one employee who works in Kolkata was assigned election duty in far-off Alipurduar, while others were posted in Malda. This geographical dislocation further impedes their ability to service existing clients and secure new business.
Seeking Relief: Waiver of Duty or Relaxation of Targets
Faced with this clash of official duties, the LIC officers have sought clear intervention from the judiciary. Their counsel presented a two-pronged request to the court: either they should be exempted from election duty entirely, or their stringent premium targets should be relaxed for the period they are deployed on election work.
The advocate emphasized the urgency, stating that all other representations had been made, and the March 31 deadline is fast approaching. The case underscores the challenges faced by public sector employees who are often roped in for election-related work, potentially jeopardizing their primary careers and financial security.
