Manish Narware vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India
2024 Latest Caselaw 15890 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Manish Narware vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 28 May, 2024

                                                        1
                           IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
                                              ON THE 28 th OF MAY, 2024
                                           WRIT PETITION No. 26353 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    MANISH      NARWARE      S/O  SHRI   LAXMAN
                                NARWARE,       AGED     ABOUT    38   YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION: DAILY WAGES WORKER ( IN THE
                                DEPARTMENT OF RESPONDENT AUTHORITY) R/O
                                H NO 3/ 242 B.D.A. COLONY AVADHPURI DISTRICT
                                BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    SHOEB KHAN S/O RASID KHAN, AGED ABOUT 36
                                YEAR S, OCCUPATION: DAILY WAGES WORKER
                                R/O MEHANGIPURA WARD 07, BERASIA,
                                DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                .....PETITIONERS
                          (BY SHRI AKASH SINGHAI - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
                                THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CENTRAL OFFICE
                                YOGAKSHENA MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA)

                          2.    LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
                                THROUGH ITS, ZONAL MANAGER CENTRAL
                                ZONAL OFFICE, 60-B, JEEWAN  SHIKSHA,
                                HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          3.    LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
                                THROUGH ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER
                                DIVISION OFFICE, JEEWAN PRAKASH, MADAN
                                MAHAL, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
                                THROUGH ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER
                                DIVISION OFFICE, 60-A, JEEWAN PRAKASH,
                                ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                               .....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 5/29/2024
6:40:54 PM
                                                               2
                          (NONE)

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                               ORDER

The petitioners claim to be working on the post of Sub-Staff on daily wages in Life Insurance Corporation since 2012. The learned counsel for petitioners contends that despite having worked for more than 11 years, respondents- LIC has not taken up their case for regularization, they are being continued on daily wages only.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on judgment of Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ors. vs Umadevi

And Others 2006(4) SCC 1, to contend that the present petitioners who have worked for more than 10 years should be regularized.

3. On perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioners were appointed for the first time in the year 2012 whereas exercise in terms of the case of Umadevi (supra) was to be one time exercise and petitioners do not seem to be covered under that. Learned counsel for petitioners at this stage raised a plea that certain other employees similarly situated to the petitioner have been regularized.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that petitioners have submitted a representation to the respondents vide Annexure P4 collectively.

5 . In view of the grievance raised, the petitioners are directed to re- submit the representations Annexure P/4 before the respondents No. 2 and 3 within a period of one month from today giving details of the employees who have been regularized and are similarly situated to the petitioners.

6. If such representation is filed within a period of one month then the

respondents no. 2 and 3 shall dwell upon the representations strictly in terms of the applicable rules, office memorandum, policy etc in this behalf.

7. Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case or entitlement of the petitioners.

8. Petition stands disposed of.

(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE MISHRA