Karnataka High Court
Shreedhar Gouda vs The Chairman on 14 November, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
WP No. 82263 of 2012
And connected matters
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 82263 OF 2012 (S-REG)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 200640 OF 2018 (S-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 201560 OF 2018 (S-DIS)
WRIT PETITION NO. 201561 OF 2018 (S-REG)
WRIT PETITION NO. 201562 OF 2018 (S-REG)
IN W.P.No. 82263/2012:
BETWEEN:
1. SHREEDHAR GOUDA,
Digitally signed
S/O RAMANGOUDA, AGE 36 YEARS,
by KIRAN
KUMAR R OCC. ASST-CUM-COMPUTER OPERATOR
Location: High (TEMPORARY)
Court of
Karnataka LIC OF INDIA, CB-II BRANCH
MSK MILLS ROAD, GULBARGA,
R/O OM NAGAR, SEDAM ROAD,
GULBARGA.
2. JYOTHI D/O NAGENDRAPPA,
W/O CHANAMALLAPPA,
AGE 28 YEARS,
OCC. ASST-CUM-COMPUTER OPERATOR
(TEMPORARY)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
WP No. 82263 of 2012
And connected matters
LIC OF INDIA, CB-II, GULBARGA.
3. VINOD,
S/O UMLA RATHOD AGE 25 YEARS,
OCC.ASST-CUM-COMPUTER OPERATOR
(TEMPORARY)
LIC OF INDIA, CB-II BRANCH
MSK MILLS ROAD, GULBARGA,
R/O OM NAGAR, SEDAM ROAD,
GULBARGA.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P.VILAS KUMAR., SENIOR COUNSEL., FOR
SRI.NITESH PADIYAL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN,
LIFE INSURANCE COPORATION OF INDIA,
CENTRAL OFFICE, YOGAKSHMA,
4TH FLOOR, JEEVAN BIMA MARG,
NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-76003.
2. THE ZONAL MANAGER,
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
SOUTH CENTRAL ZONAL OFFICE,
SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD-500 063.
3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
"AMRUTH PRAKASH" P.B.No.43
SA TH KACHERI ROAD,
RAICHUR-584 101.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
LIC OF INDIA,
CB-II BRANCH, MSK MILLS ROAD,
GULBARGA-585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. UDAY.P.HONGANTIKAR., ADVOCATE)
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTITORARY FOR QUASHING THE LIC OF
INDIA (EMPLOYMENT OF TEMPORARY STAFF) INSTRUCTIONS
1993, CIR.No.ZD/792/ASP/93 DATED:28.06.1993 WHICH IS AT
ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER FOR QUASHING THE CIRCULAR
REF.P AND IR/066/2012-13 DATED 17.04.2012 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT No.3 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-B, ETC.
IN W.P.No. 200640/2018:
BETWEEN:
UMESH,
S/O HULIGEPPA, AGE 30 YEARS,
OCC. ATTENDER IN LIC OF INDIA,
SINDHANOOR BRANCH,
R/O DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
WARD No.26, SUKALPETH,
SINDHANOOR-584 128,
DIST. RAICHUR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.P. VILAS KUMAAR., SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR
SRI.NITESH PADIYAL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN,
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
CENTRAL OFFICE, "YOGAKSHEMA"
2ND FLOOR JEEVAN BHIMA MARG,
MUMBAI.
2. THE ZONAL MANAGER,
LIC OF INDIA, JEEVAN BHAGYA,
SOUTH CENTRAL ZONE,
SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD-500 001.
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
LIC OF INDIA, SINDHANOOR-584 128
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
DIST. RAICHUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. UDAY.P. HONGANTIKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE CIRCULAR
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT No.3 DATED 05.01.2018 IN SO FAR
AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO
TREAT THE PETITIONER WHO HAVE BEEN APPOINTED AGAINST
PERMANENT VACANY SINCE THE DATE OF HIS APPOINTMENT
I.E., APRIL 2010 AND ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF ARREARS OF
WAGES WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS. IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICE OF THE
PETITIONER W.E.F APRIL 2010 WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS INCLUDING FIXATION OF SALARY OF PAYMENT OF
ARREARS OF WAGES ETC., IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN W.P.No.201560/2018:
BETWEEN:
CHIDANAND,
S/O DEVENDRA AGE 30 YEARS,
OCC. ATTENDER IN LIC CB-II BRANCH,
NEAR CENTRAL BUS STAND,
KALABURAGI-585 104.
R/O INGALAGI TALUK AFZALPUR,
DISTRICT KALABURAGI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P. VILAS KUMAR., SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR
SRI. NITESH PADIYAL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
CENTRAL OFFICE, "YOGAKSHEMA"
2ND FLOOR, JEEVAN BHIMA MARG,
MUMBAI,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-4000 80.
2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
POST BOX No.43, RAICHUR-584 101.
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
LIC CB-II BRANCH,
NEAR CENTRAL BUS STAND,
KALABURAGI-585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. UDAY.P. HONGANTIKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING THAT
THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO TREAT THE
PETITIONER TO HAVE BEEN APPOINTED AGAINST PERMANENT
VACANCY SINCE THE DATE OF HIS APPOINTMENT I.E., JUNE
2006 WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING THE
ARREARS OF WAGES.
IN W.P.No.201561/2018:
BETWEEN:
VIJAYANANDA
S/O NARASING RAO PAWAR
AGE 33 YEARS,
OCC ATTENDER-SUB-STAFF
OCC. ATTENDER IN LIC CB-II BRANCH,
NEAR CENTRAL BUS STAND,
KALABURAGI-585 104.
R.O NEAR AMBABAI TEMPLE,
SHAHABAZAAR, KALABURAGI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P. VILAS KUMAR., SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR
SRI. NITESH PADIYAL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
CENTRAL OFFICE, "YOGAKSHEMA"
2ND FLOOR, JEEVAN BHIMA MARG,
MUMBAI. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-4000 80.
2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
POST BOX No.43, RAICHUR-584 101.
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
LIC CB-II BRANCH,
NEAR CENTRAL BUS STAND,
KALABURAGI-585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. UDAY.P. HONGANTIKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS
TO TREAT THE PETITIONER TO HAVE BEEN APPOINTED
AGAINST PERMANENT VACANCY SINCE THE DATE OF HIS
APPOINTMNET I.E., JUNE 2006 WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS INCLUDING THE ARREARS OF WAGES, ETC.
IN W.P.No.201562/2018:
BETWEEN:
MADIWALAPPA
S/O CHANNABASAPPA,
AGE 28 YEARS,
OCC:ATTENDER IN LIC CB-I BRANCH,
NEAR OLD JAIL GARDEN,
KALABURAGI-585 104
R/O HALLANOOR TALUK,
AFZALPUR,
DISTRICT.KALABURAGI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P. VILAS KUMAR., SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR
SRI. NITESH PADIYAL., ADVOCATE)
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
AND:
1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
CENTRAL OFFICE, "YOGAKSHEMA"
2ND FLOOR, JEEVAN BHIMA MARG,
MUMBAI,
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-4000 80.
2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
POST BOX No.43,
RAICHUR-584 101.
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
LIC CB-II BRANCH,
NEAR CENTRAL BUS STAND,
KALABURAGI-585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. UDAY.P. HONGANTIKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS
TO TREAT THE PETITIONER TO HAVE BEEN APPOINTED
AGAINST PERMANENT VACANCY SINCE THE DATE OF HIS
APPOINTMENT I.E., APRIL 2014 WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS INCLUDING THE ARREARS OF WAGES, ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 22.10.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CAV ORDER
1. W.P. No.82263-265/2012 is filled by Shreedhar
Gouda, Jyothi and Vinod.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
2. Shreedhar Gouda contends that he was appointed in
November, 1999 as an 'Attender-cum-Assistant Computer
Operator' after appearing for an interview, and he was
appointed as a temporary employee. He also admits that
no appointment orders were issued to him in writing and
that his name was notified in the notice board, asking him
to report for duty immediately
3. Jyothi and Vinod also contend, in the same way, that
they were appointed in the month of June, 2006 and were
also not issued with any appointment orders, but their
names were notified in the notice board. In the petition
filed by them, they have challenged the quashing of the
LIC of India (Employment of Temporary Staff)
Instructions, 1993 and also the circular dated 17.04.2012
issued by respondent No.3 (Annexure B).
4. W.P. No.200640 of 2018, W.P. No.201560 of 2018,
W.P. No.201561 of 2018, W.P. No.201562 of 2018 are
filed by Umesh, Chidanand, Vijayananda and Madiwalappa
respectively.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
5. Umesh (the petitioner in W.P.No.200640/2018)
contends that he was appointed as an 'Attender cum
D-Group employee' in April of 2010 against the
recruitment notification which was published in the notice
board, and after he faced an interview with others, he was
selected on his own merit. He also contends that his name
was exhibited on the notice board and that he reported for
duty in April, 2010. He contends though he was appointed
against a permanent vacancy, he was treated as a
temporary / daily wage employee.
6. Chidanand (the petitioner in W.P.No.201560/2018)
also contends that pursuant to a notification notified in the
notice board, he had applied, and after he was interviewed
and found to possess the requisite merit, his appointment
was notified on the notice board, following which and he
reported for duty in the month of June, 2006.
7. Vijayananda (the petitioner in W.P. No.201561/2018)
similarly contends that as against the notification which
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
was notified in the notice board, he had applied, and after
being interviewed and being found to possess requisite
merit, he was appointed with his name being notified on
the notice board. He contends that he started working in
the year 2007.
8. Madiwalappa (the petitioner in W.P.No.201562/2018)
also contends that as against the notification issued in the
month of April, 2014, he applied for the post of Attender
along with others and after he was interviewed and found
to possess requisite merit, he was appointed and his
appointment was also notified on the notice board and he
had reported to duty in the month of April, 2014. Umesh,
Chidanand, Vijayananda and Madiwalappa seek quashing
of the circular dated 05.01.2018 (vide Annexure-A to the
respective writ petitions) and for issuance of a direction to
treat them as being appointed against permanent
vacancies along with arrears, and for issuing a direction to
regularize their services with effect from the dates they
were appointed.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
9. In the objections of the LIC to the petition filed by
Shreedhar Gouda, Jyothi and Vinod, as against the
contention of the petitioners that they were appointed
pursuant to the notification and an interview, it has been
stated as follows:
"3) It is submitted that, it is incorrect to state
that the respondent has resorted to several unfair
labour practice and engaging the employees against
the permanent vacancies and brand them as
Temporary or Daily Wage Employees. The
statements of the petitioner are not based on the
facts. The recruitment in LIC in Class-III & Class-IV
is made duly adhering to the rules and regulations
of LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, against
temporary vacancies, Temporary Staff is recruited
as per LIC of India (Employment of Temporary
Staff) Instructions, 1993 marked at ANNEXURE-R1.
All these instructions are issued with prior approval
of Central Government. Therefore, during office
exigencies, for clearing the pending office work,
employees have been engaged on Daily Wage
basis. These employees are removed once the
pending work is cleared. Hence, the respondents
did not resort to any such practices.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
4) It is submitted that, the LIC of India
(Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions,
1993 were issued with the prior approval of the
Central Government. Therefore, the petitioners in
this case were not appointed as Temporary Staff as
per the above instructions. These petitioners were
working as Daily Wagers during office exigencies
and the Employment of Temporary Staff
Instructions, 1993 was not applicable to them They
are employed basically for clearing the pending
work on day-today basis without limiting their
activities to any particular job or work.
5) The statements averred by the petitioner in
the petition alleging of exploiting these employees
and defeating their rights etc. are baseless and
denied for want of knowledge. The temporary staff
is appointed against the temporary vacancies after
ensuring that they fulfill the eligibility of criteria.
These petitioners were employed on daily basis
during office exigencies only.
6) It is submitted that, there is no post such
as Attender Cum Asst-Computer Operator in LIC of
India. The recruitment of Temporary Assistants was
made with the prior permission of the competent
authority. The recruitment of temporary assistance
in the year 1995 was made as per LIC of India
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
(Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions,
1993. The branches of different level were
instructed to obtain the list of candidate from
concerned Dist. Employment Exchange and the
candidates from the concerned District Employment
Exchange and the candidates were called for
interview to prepare a panel. The candidates from
the panel to be engaged for brief, specified periods
during leave vacancy etc. of the permanent
employees. Appointment letters are issued to such
candidates only. The petitioners, however, were not
appointed on temporary basis, but were engaged to
clear pending work during office exigencies".
10. Thus, the LIC admits that the aforesaid petitioners
were appointed on temporary basis to clear the pending
work during office exigencies. The assertion that they were
appointed continuously has not been denied.
11. It may be pertinent to state that the petitioners in
paragraph No.21 of the writ petition stated that they were
being paid wages under code No.11329700 till May, 2012
and were asked to issue vouchers for having received their
monthly wages. It was contended by them that the code
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
numbers purported to a head of account, relating to
miscellaneous expenses and they were therefore being
paid wages under the head of account of miscellaneous
expenses even though they were continuously engaged for
5 to 10 years.
12. The petitioners also contended that a circular had
been issued on 17.04.2012 by the Head Office directing all
the Branch Managers to get rid of all the remaining
employees who were branded as temporary employees
and on the basis of this circular, the respondents stopped
paying wages under the aforementioned code account and
started giving wages in the name of a fictitious person. As
regards this contention, in para 9 and 10 of the writ
petition, the LIC contends as follows:
"9) It is submitted that, the miscellaneous
expenses account code No. 11329700 is used for
accounting for various types of expenses which
cannot be classified under any account head.
Payment of daily wages is done using this account
head. Since these petitioners were not appointed to
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
any post in the office, the matter of removing them
as mentioned by the petitioners does not arise. The
petitioners were engaged only during office
exigencies on daily wage basis. 2nd
10) The petitioners were not appointed
against any permanent vacancy. They were
engaged on daily basis during office exigencies. The
petitioners were engaged only to perform the
pending jobs and not appointed to any post. Hence,
the contention of the petitioners that they are
fulfilling all the constitutional and legal
requirements for being appointed to the post of
Junior Assistants or sub-staff is not correct.
Further, no post called for Junior Assistants exists
in LIC of India".
13. Thus, the LIC admitted that account code
No.11329700 related to a miscellaneous expenses account
and the petitioners were paid daily wages under this head
of account.
14. In respect of the circular dated 17.04.2012, the LIC
stated as follows:
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
"The above petitioners were working as daily
wagers during office exigencies and were not
engaged as temporary workers as per LIC of India
(Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions,
1993. Hence, it is submitted to the Hon'ble Court
that quashing of the above instructions is not
related to the case of the petitioners. The letter
dated 17/04/2012 is related to engagement of
temporary assistants under the provisions of the
LIC of India (Employment of Temporary Staff)
Instructions, 1993 and since the petitioners are not
temporary assistants but only daily wagers engaged
during office exigencies, the letter dated
17/04/2012 is not related to the case".
15. Thus, the LIC didn't dispute the circular dated
17.04.2012 produced in Annexure-B. By this Annexure, all
the Chief Managers and Branch Managers under the
Raichur Division were directed not to employ any
temporary assistants under their jurisdiction. The relevant
portion of the circular which should be exhibited for the
purpose of the writ petition are as follows:
"We have called for the data of temporary
assistants working in your Branch and also advised
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
you to terminate their services with immediate
effect, if proper sanction has not been obtained for
the temporary appointments, from the Competent
Authority as per the provisions of Employment of
Temporary Staff Instructions, 1993.
The under signed has viewed this matter
seriously and directed that no temporary assistants
are to be employed in the Branch/SO s under the
jurisdiction of the Division in future and no payment
should be allowed by operating the OME code in the
name of particular persons repeatedly in future.
Please note that any deviations with regard to
aforesaid instructions the HOB s are personally held
responsible".
16. As could be seen from said Circular, not only was a
direction issued not to employ temporary assistants but a
direction was also issued not to allow payments by
operating the OME code in the future. Thus, the assertion
of the petitioners that they were being paid wages under
the head of account of miscellaneous expenses was also
admitted. It is therefore clear from the conjoint reading of
the writ petition and the objections that it is the admitted
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
case of the LIC that the petitioners were paid as
contended by them and the direction to stop payment of
wages was only in the year 2012. The petitioners have
incidentally filed this petition on 26.06.2012 i.e., after 2
months after the issuance of the circular. It thus goes to
show that the petitioners were, in fact, employed
continuously as contended by them till the circular was
issued calling upon the Branch Managers to stop payment.
17. Similarly in the cases relating to Umesh, Chidanand,
Vijayananda and Madiwalappa, the LIC took up the
contention similar to that in the case of Shreedhar Gouda,
Jyothi, and Vinod.
18. Thus, the assertions of the petitioners, that they
were appointed in respect of the dates mentioned by them
in the writ petition was not denied by the LIC.
19. The petitioners also raised a contention that the
Branch Managers have received an e-mail on 05.01.2018
by which a direction had been issued by the competent
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
authority that 2 daily wage persons were required to be
removed from the Raichur Branch. The e-mail also
indicated that a confirmation about the action taken along
with the names of the daily wagers, the duration during
which they have worked, and the nature of duty attended
by them should be informed by e-mail reply, and pursuant
to this, the petitioners contend that they were being
treated as temporary employees. The LIC in response to
this assertion has stated as follows:
"5. It is further submitted here that the Head
Office had issued a circular, wherein on 05.01.2018
it has directed the divisional office to remove or
terminate the 'D' Group employees who are
branded as temporary or daily wage employees.
Consequent upon the directions/instructions from
the head office, the respondent No.2 has also
issued notice dated 05.01.2018 to Branch Office
and also the Respondent No.3 office to remove the
employees including the petitioner who are branded
as daily wage employees".
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
20. As could be seen from the above, the LIC does not
dispute the contents of the e-mail which contained a
positive direction to terminate daily wagers.
21. Thus, in respect of the first writ petition which is filed
in the year 2012 and also the subsequent writ petitions
which were filed in the year 2018, the LIC clearly admits
that the petitioners had been appointed, though without
any formal order of appointment in respect of the three
petitioners i.e., Shreedhar Gouda, Jyothi, and Vinod, who
had filed the writ petitions in the year 2012, had also
admits that they were being paid salaries under the head
of the account of miscellaneous expenses.
22. It also admits that a circular was issued on
17.04.2012 in respect of three petitioners of the year 2012
to stop paying the money under the head of account of
miscellaneous expenses in respect of the petitioners who
had filed the petition in the year 2018 and the LIC also
admits the circulation of an e-mail which mandated the
removal of the daily wagers immediately. This would
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
thereby indicate that the assertions of the petitioners that
they had worked from the respective dates mentioned in
their petitions ranging from 1999 to 2014 is not in dispute.
If an instrumentality of the State such as the LIC were to
admit the employment but thereafter take up an
ambivalent stand regarding the payment of salaries, it
would only indicate that the LIC was trying to escape its
liability in respect of the appointments made by it.
23. As a matter of fact, the LIC was called upon to state
in clear terms as to how long the petitioners had worked.
In response, learned counsel appearing for the LIC stated
that relevant records were not available and given the
passage of time, the records could not be traced.
24. It may be stated here that the petitioners have
produced the circular dated 17.04.2012 and the e-mail
dated 05.01.2018, which relate to the engagement of the
personnel on temporary basis and also payment of wages
to them. Having regard to the fact that the first batch of
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
petitioners approached this Court immediately in the year
2012, it is incomprehensible as to how the LIC would not
have the records, more so when the LIC filed its counter
immediately after the filing of the writ petition in the
month of April, 2013 itself.
25. The contentions raised by the LIC stating that the
petitioners are not entitled to regularization by virtue of
Umadevi's case1 would be of no avail in the present case.
Since, the present case can be comparable to the decision
by a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in a case
relating to temporary staff/badli/part time workers by the
LIC itself, which is considered later in this judgment.
26. In my view, the attitude adopted by the LIC would
clearly indicate that they do not want the Court to be
apprised of the factual possession and decided to take an
ambiguous stand regarding the nature of appointment,
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors., AIR 2006 SC
1806.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
length of appointment, and the wages that were paid to
the petitioners herein.
27. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the
appointments as contended by the petitioners has not
been disputed, the assertion of the petitioners that their
employment came under the threat pursuant to the
circulars dated 17.04.2012 and 05.01.2018 is also not
serious dispute. It is therefore clear that the petitioners
were in employment from the dates mentioned by them till
the issuance of the circulars dated 17.04.2012 and
05.01.2018.
28. It was open for the LIC to produce records relating to
the payments made to the petitioners to establish their
contention that their engagement was intermittent, and
they did not work for the entire year. However, this has
not been done. It is unbelievable that the LIC -- a financial
institution engaged in the business of insuring the lives of
millions of people -- would not possess the records
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
relating to the payment of wages to its employees over
several years.
29. In light of the improper and unfair stand taken by the
LIC, this Court has no other option but to draw an adverse
inference and accept the assertion of petitioners that they
did render a continuous service from the dates on which
they were appointed (as pleaded by them) and that they
rendered service continuously till the above-mentioned
circulars were furnished.
30. At this stage, the judgment rendered by the Apex
Court in the case of Ranbir Singh2 by a three-Judge
Bench of the Supreme Court would be relevant. In that
case, the claim of absorption was by persons who had
been engaged by the LIC as temporary/badli/part-time
workers. The Supreme Court, after taking into
consideration all relevant factors including the fact that
several of the temporary staff had been absorbed pursuant
to its earlier decision, nevertheless, ultimately disposed of
Ranbir Singh v. S. K. Roy, Chairman, Life Insurance Corp. of India & Anr.,
2022 SCC OnLine SC 521.
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
the petition in the following terms to bring a quietus to the
controversy:
"75. The dispute is now of an antiquity tracing back
to nearly four decades. Finality has to be wrung
down on the dispute to avoid uncertainty and more
litigation. Nearly thirty-one years have elapsed
since 1991. We have come to the conclusion that
the claims of those workers who are duly found
upon verification to meet the threshold conditions
of eligibility should be resolved by the award of
monetary compensation in lieu of absorption, and in
full and final settlement of all claims and demands.
Thus, this Court directs the following:
(i) A fresh verification of the claims of workers who
claim to have been employed for at least 70 days in
Class IV posts over a period of three years or 85
days in Class III posts over a period of two years
shall be carried out;
(ii) The verification shall be confined to persons
who were working between 20 May 1985 and 4
March 1991;
(iii) All persons who are found to be eligible on the
above norm shall be entitled to compensation
computed at the rate of
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
Rs 50,000 for every year of service or part thereof.
The payment of compensation at the above rate
shall be in lieu of reinstatement, and in full and
final settlement of all claims and demands of the
workers in lieu of regularisation or absorption and
notwithstanding the directions issued by this Court
in TN Terminated Employees Association
(supra);
(iv) In carrying out the process of verification, the
Committee appointed by this Court shall not be
confined to the certified list before the CGIT and
shall consider the claims of all workers who were
engaged between 20 May 1985 and 4 March 1991;
(v) For the purpose of verification, LIC shall make
available all the records at the Divisional level to
the Committee appointed by this Court;
(vi) It will be open to the workers concerned or, as
the case may be, the Unions and Associations
representing them, to make available such
documentary material in their possession for the
purpose of verification;
(vii) The process of verification shall be carried out
independently without regard to the Dogra Report,
which is held to be flawed;
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
(viii) The payment of compensation in lieu of
reinstatement shall be effected by LIC within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of
the report of verification by the Committee, and
(ix) The task of verification shall be carried out by a
Committee consisting of.
(a) Mr Justice P K S Baghel, former Judge of the
Allahabad High Court, and
(b) Shri Rajiv Sharma, former District Judge and
member of the UPHJS.
LIC shall provide all logistical assistance to the
Committee and bear all expenses, including
secretarial expenses, travel and incidental
expenses, as well as the fees payable to the
members of the Committee. Justice P K S Baghel
shall fix the terms of remuneration payable to the
members of the Committee".
31. In light of this judgment, the claim of the petitioners
for regularization cannot obviously be granted. It may be
noticed that the Supreme Court in the cases relating to
temporary staff/badli/part time workers who had worked
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
only for 70 days in Class-IV posts over a period of 3 years
or for 85 days in Class-III posts over a period of 2 years
found it fit to direct LIC to pay them compensation
computed at the rate of Rs.50,000/- for every year of
service or part thereof.
32. In my view, interest of justice and equity would be
served by following the said dictum, however, with a slight
modification (relating to the quantum of compensation)
and direct the LIC to pay the petitioners monetary
compensation in lieu of absorption.
33. As already observed above, the Supreme Court while
dealing with cases relating to Class-IV employees or Class-
III employees who worked for 70 days or 85 days in a
year, awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- per year for every
year of service rendered as full and final settlement of the
claims and demands, in view of regularization or
absorption. Since, in the instant case, the petitioners have
worked for several years, it would be appropriate to direct
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
the LIC to pay the petitioners a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for
every year of service rendered.
34. The sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Supreme
Court has been taken as the basis and the amount is
doubled, given the fact that the LIC did not dispute the
continuous service rendered by the petitioners. Since the
petitioners have rendered continuous service in excess of
70 days or 85 days (as was in the case examined the
Supreme Court) and have also rendered service ranging
from 4 to 13 years, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for ever year
of service rendered would be just and proper, and would
meet the ends of justice. Consequently, the petitioners
herein would be entitled for the following sums:
Employment
Petitioners Amount entitled
period
13 years
Shreedhar 13,00,000/-
(Nov, 1999 to
Gouda (13 X 1,00,000/-)
17.04.2012)
6 years
6,00,000/-
Jyothi (June, 2006 to
(6 X 1,00,000/-)
17.04.2012)
6 years
6,00,000/-
Vinod (June, 2006 to
(6 X 1,00,000/-)
17.04.2012)
8 years
8,00,000/-
Umesh (April, 2010 to
(8 X 1,00,000/-)
05.01.2018)
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8466
And connected matters
12 years
12,00,000/-
Chidanand (June, 2006 to
(12 X 1,00,000/-)
05.01.2018)
11 years
11,00,000/-
Vijayananda (2007 to
(11 X 1,00,000/-)
05.01.2018)
4 years
4,00,000/-
Madiwalappa (April, 2014 to
(4 X 1,00,000/-)
05.01.2018)
35. These writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
GSR
