Madras High Court
K.S. Krishna Rao vs Government Of India on 22 October, 2024
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
W.A.No.1229 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 26.06.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 22.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHaANABAL
W.A.No. 1229 of 2024
and W.M.P.No.9044 of 2024
1.K.S. Krishna Rao
2.K.Vinayagam
3.M.Amsanathan
4.D.Thiyagu
5.N.Venkatesan
6.K.Govindan
7.J.Perumal ... Appellants/ Petitioners
VS.
1. Government of India
Ministry of Labour & Employment,
Rep. by its Secretary
Shram Shakthi Bhawan
Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001
2. Regional Labour Commissioner No.26
Ill Bock, 5th Floor,
Shastri Bhawan,
Haddows Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600006
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 12
W.A.No.1229 of 2024
3. Life Insurance Corporation
Rep.by its Chairman
West Wing, Yogakshema
P.B.No.19953, Jeevan Bhima Marg
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021
4. The Zonal Manager
Life Insurance Corporation
New No.153, Old No. 102,
LIC Building, 11th Floor,
Anna Salai, Chennai-600002 ... Respondents/ Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set
aside the order dated 29.09.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.25295 of
2018.
For Appellants : Mr. A.Navaneethakrishnan, Senior Counsel
for Mr. M.Sathya Kumar
For RR 1 & 2 : Mr. V.Ravi
Special Government Pleader
For RR 3 & 4 : Mr.R.S. Anandan
******
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.)
The aggrieved workers have preferred the present Writ Appeal,
challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge made in
W.P.No.25295 of 2015 dated 29.09.2023.
2. The case of the appellants is that they worked for the 3rd and 4th
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Respondent- Life Insurance Corporation for about thirty years in various
roles such as sweepers and watchmen, thereby performing the same task
like that of the permanent employees, but received lower wages and also
had longer working hours. Despite uninterrupted service from 1993 to 2023
and assurances of job security, they were not regularized due to alleged
educational qualification issues.
3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, under the Tamil
Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act,
1981, employees become permanent after completing 480 days of service
within two years. Therefore, a writ petition was filed in W.P.No.25295 of
2018 seeking regularization of their employment along with associated
benefits which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated
29.09.2023. Challenging the same, the present Writ appeal came to be filed.
4. Meanwhile, Mr.R.S. Anandan, learned counsel for the 3rd and 4th
respondents submitted that the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC)
was established under the L.I.C. Act of 1956 which maintains a structured
employment framework, differentiating permanent and temporary
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
positions of the workers. Permanent employees are being regulated by the
L.I.C. of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, while temporary employees,
including badli workers, are governed by the L.I.C. of India (Employment
of Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993.
5. While being so, the appellants herein, are the badli workers, who
were engaged in accordance with the L.I.C. of India (Employment of
Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993 in which the scope of employment,
procedure for employment, duration of temporary employment and
consideration of temporary employees for regular recruitment have been
clearly stated. The age limit is 28 years on the date of employment
notification and the educational qualification as per Annexure - I is a pass
in standard IX.
6. According to the learned counsel for the 3rd and 4th respondents,
the appellants herein are not qualified for the selection held in the year
2011. The appellants filed W.P.No. 25295 of 2018, seeking regularization
of their services with L.I.C. of India from their initial date of appointment
or after completing 480 days of engagement, along with consequential
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
benefits. They have also obtained an order of interim stay in the year 2018,
allowing them to continue as daily wage engagement, without facing
retrenchment threats, since they were not formally appointed or terminated
under statutory rules. However, the Learned Judge has rightly dismissed the
writ petition on 29.09.2023, citing its judgment in W.P.No.29529 of 2018.
Therefore, the learned counsel for the 3rd and 4th respondents submitted that
the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. The Learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that they
have been working as low-level employees at L.I.C. for several decades,
without being regularized as permanent staff. The learned counsel drew the
reference of this Court to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
L.I.C of India Vs D.V. Anil Kumar reported in (2011) SCC Online SC
1602 in which L.I.C. agreed to absorb temporary employees as Class IV
employees through a limited examination. Following this, L.I.C. issued a
Notification on 20.05.2011, for the appointment of peons, requiring a
minimum qualification of passing the 9th grade, with an examination
scheduled for 26.06.2011. Although the appellants applied, they were not
considered for the same, since they have not completed the 9th grade. They
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
were allowed to continue as temporary employees until the writ petition in
W.P.No.25295 of 2018 is dismissed. As soon as the the Writ Petition was
dismissed, the appellants were dismissed from service w.e.f. 18.12.2023.
8. It is also submitted that L.I.C. only conducted a limited
examination for the post of Peon, neglecting other Class IV cadre positions
like sweepers and caretakers. While the appellants lack the educational
qualifications for Peon, they have worked as multi-tasking employees at
L.I.C. The appellants, aged 53 to 56, have limited years left to complete
their service and contend that L.I.C. cannot deny them employment, as they
were allowed to remain as temporary staff after a 2011 exam. Following
their termination on 18.12.2023, they are facing financial hardships, which
prompted them to file the present writ appeal.
9. The learned counsel for the 3rd and 4th respondent further
contended that according to the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, an
Employment Notice was issued on 20.5.2011 for the appointment of peons.
Further applications were invited from all eligible temporary employees in
the Class IV cadre, the eligibility criteria for a recruitment drive at L.I.C. of
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
India stated that candidates need to have worked there for over five years,
and possess atleast a IX-standard education, and also meet the age
requirements.
10. The learned counsel for the 3rd and 4th respondent also
submitted that during the 2011 recruitment process, 34 badli workers
applied for peon positions, but only 22 numbers of workers were selected.
The seven appellants herein were not selected for various reasons,
including failing to receive hall tickets for the exam. They have not
challenged their non-selection. The sixth appellant was disqualified for
submitting a fake school certificate and he also did not contest this
disqualification. Consequently, none of the appellants can claim
regularization.
11. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the 3rd and 4th
respondent that after the recruitment drive, the unsuccessful badli workers
were allowed to continue in their roles on humanitarian grounds, despite
their ineligibility for regular posts. However, the Corporation is now using
outsourced agencies, which means these workers cannot be absorbed into
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
regular positions as observed in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi reported in 2006 (4)
SCC 1.
12. Following a court ruling on 29.09.2023, the workers were
disengaged from their temporary roles as of 18.12.2023. It is noted that
even though they were allowed to remain employed temporarily, there is no
provision for their regularization, as supported by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court decision that emphasizes the need for fairness and equal opportunity
in public employment. The claim for regularization by the appellants, is
thus deemed without merit. This Writ Appeal was filed only on 15.2.2024
with a condone delay petition. When the services of the appellants are
disengaged, then, the appellants are not entitled for regularisation of service
without challenging the disengagement order. Therefore, the learned
counsel for the 3rd and 4th respondent submitted that for the aforesaid
reason, this writ appeal has to be dismissed.
13. Upon hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the Appellant, the learned counsel for the Respondent and on perusing the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
materials available on record, the point for determination in this appeal is
as follows:-
i. Whether the appellants are entitled for
regularization of their employment, along with the
associated benefits as prayed for?
14. It is pertinent to note that the appellants worked for the 3rd and
4th respondent Corporation for about 30 years, performing the same tasks
as similar to that of permanent employees but with lower wages and longer
hours. Despite continuous service from the years1993 to 2023 and promises
of job security, they were not made permanent, allegedly due to the
educational qualification issues. Even if they lack the required
qualifications, they continued in the employment as temporary employees
for the meagre salary, until the passing of the order in writ petition and
immediately disengaged the appellants from the service after its dismissal
order.
15. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that as the appellants/
workers have been working till the dismissal of the order of the writ court
and who are in the verge of their retirement, they are entitled to have their
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
service regularized. As contended by the learned counsel for the 3rd and
4th respondents, with regard to the limited examination to the class IV
cadre, it can be observed that the examination conducted by the L.I.C. was
specifically for the post of peon, which is a Class IV cadre position. Since
the appellants herein are not peons, they were not eligible to participate in
the exam held on 26.06.2011. Although the appellants herein worked in
various multitasking jobs as directed by the Management, they do not have
the educational qualifications for the peon position. It is also to be noted
that the exam did not cover other roles such as sweepers, cleaners, or
caretakers.
16. This being the case, the respondent Management failed to have
conducted the examination for the other sub categories of Class IV posts.
Despite the same, the appellants/workers continued to serve the respondent
Management without any interruption in service. Moreover, the appellants
are temporary employees, who have worked continuously for more than
480 days without any interruption, are entitled to regularization. Given this,
the denial of regularization to the appellants/ workers is a clear violation of
the right to equality in employment.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the order dated 29.09.2023
passed by the Learned Single Judge is set aside and the appeal filed by the
appellants/ workers is hereby allowed. The appellants/workers are entitled
for regularization on completion of their 480 days of continuous service in
the respondent Management. The respondent-L.I.C. is directed to extend
the benefits to the appellants as eligible to permanent employees in similar
posts and settle the monetary and pensionary benefits eligible to them
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
18. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands Allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
(J.N.B.J.) (P.D.B.J)
22.10.2024
nvsri/sts
J.NISHA BANU, J.
and
P.DHANABAL, J.
sts
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Internet: Yes
Index:Yes/No
To:
1. The Secretary,
Government of India
Ministry of Labour & Employment,
Shram Shakthi Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001
2. Regional Labour Commissioner No.26
Ill Bock, 5th Floor, Shastri Bhawan,
Haddows Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600006
3. Life Insurance Corporation
Rep.by its Chairma, West Wing, Yogakshema
P.B.No.19953, Jeevan Bhima Marg
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021
4. The Zonal Manager
Life Insurance Corporation
New No.153, Old No. 102, LIC Building, 11th Floor,
Anna Salai, Chennai-600002
Judgment in
Dated:
22.10.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
