Dismissed

Shri Santosh v. Fatarpekar v Life Insurance Corporation of India through Its General Manager

Bombay HC16 Dec 2013WP/147/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected writ petitions seeking an order to the Life Insurance Corporation of India to withdraw a letter and consider petitioners for absorption under a Scheme. The Court held that the petitions did not require interference as petitioners failed to meet service requirements.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner applications for interference were rejected as the petitions did not require judicial intervention.

Shri Santosh v. Fatarpekar Vs Life Insurance… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

WRIT PETITIONS NO.136, 138, 144 & 147 OF 2012

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.136 OF 2012 SHRI VIRENDRA ARJUN PARWAR ….PETITIONER V/S LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER ….RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO.138 OF 2012 SHRI NILESH S. MADIWAL ….PETITIONER V/S LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER AND ORS. ….RESPONDENTS

¶5

MANAGER AND ORS. ….RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO.144 OF 2012 SHRI RAJKUMAR BHIKU GAUNCE ….PETITIONER V/S LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER ….RESPONDENT AND WRIT PETITION NO.147 OF 2012 SHRI SANTOSH V. FATARPEKAR ….PETITIONER V/S LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER ….RESPONDENT Shri A.D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶6

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & F.M. REIS, JJ.

¶7

DATE : 16^th DECEMBER, 2013

¶8

¶9

ORAL ORDER :

¶10

The petitioners in the above Writ Petitions have approached this Court praying for order or direction to the respondent no.1 to withdraw their letter dated 2^nd June, 2011 and thereby consider the petitioners' application in terms of the Scheme dated 20^th May, 2011.

¶11

The petitioners are relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the bunch of appeals being Civil Appeals No.953-968 of 2005 and the subsequent Scheme framed by the respondent – Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC).

¶12

In the order passed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid Civil Appeals decided on 18^th January, 2011, the Apex Court has taken on record statement made by LIC that as a one time measure, the LIC has formulated a Scheme where under all the eligible temporary Class IV employees as also the open market candidates who had taken the examination for recruitment as Class IV employees in the year 1996, and are respondents in these cases could be considered for absorption.

¶13

¶14

The claim of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that the petitioners have not worked for five years as Badli watchman as on 18^th January, 2011 i.e. the cut off date.

¶15

Shri Bhobe on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners were on the panel of Badli Workers and it was for the respondent to call them for work as and when necessary. He further submits that if the petitioners are not called by the respondent for work the petitioners cannot be penalized for the same.

¶16

The perusal of the affidavit-in-reply would reveal that the petitioner in Writ Petition No.136/2012 was not called for any work or that he has not rendered any services right from the month of May, 2006. The other petitioners have worked for a couple of days in the year, 2006. Even in 2005, they have hardly worked for a couple of days. The very nature of temporary employment would postulate that a person concerned works for considerable number of days in a given year. Even under the Labour Laws, to get right a continuous employment of 240 days is postulated.

¶17

In that view of the matter, we do not find that the petitions require any interference by this Court under extra ordinary jurisdiction under

¶18

¶19

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitions are therefore

rejected.

F.M. REIS, J.

B.R. GAVAI, J

NH/-

Shri Santosh v. Fatarpekar v Life Insurance Corporation of India through Its General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Santosh v. Fatarpekar v Life Insurance Corporation of India through Its General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Riva Resorts Pvt. Ltd., through Its Director Shri Vishwanath Balaram Naik Palyekar and Anr., Vs State of Goa through Its Chief Secretary, and 3 Ors.

Shri. John Anthony Fernandes Vs State of Goa through Secretary Tourism, Govt. of Goa and 13 Ors.

Shri. Antonio Mario Fernandes Vs State of Goa through Secretary Tourism, Govt. of Goa and 13 Ors.

Shri Nilesh S. Madiwal Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India through Its General Manager and Ors.

Shri Virendra Arjun Parwar Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India through Its General Manager

Shri Rajkumar Bhiku Gaunce Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India through Its General Manager