Disposed

Shiv Kumar Dewangan v. Life Insurance Corporation Of India Ltd.

Chhattisgarh HC2 May 2022WPS/1093/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging discontinuation of contractual employment, the Hon'ble High Court held that the petitioner served beyond the maximum statutory limit of three terms. The petition was disposed of and interim protection vacated, with the petitioner advised to approach the respondents for absorption on merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of and the interim protection dated 22.04.2016 was vacated; petitioner advised to seek absorption on merits.

Shiv Kumar Dewangan Vs Life Insurance… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (S) No. 1093 of 2016

¶5

Shiv Kumar Dewangan S/o Late Laxmi Narayan Dewangan, R/o Sardar Patel Ward, House No. 10, Mungeli, District- Mungeli Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Life Insurance Corporation Of India Ltd. Through- Its Chairman, Managing Directors And Executive Directors Of (P&IR, MB&AC, P&GS, CLIA, Direct Marketing Departments), Yogakshema Building, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai- 400021

¶9

2. Life Insurance Corporation Of India Ltd. Through- Its Zonal Manager, Central Zone, Jeevan Shikha Building, 60-B, Arera Hills, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal- 462011

¶10

3. Life Insurance Corporation Of India Ltd. Through- Its Manager (Legal), Division Office, Shiv Dulare Mishra Parishad, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

4. Life Insurance Corporation Of India Ltd. Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner : Ms. Astha Shukla along with Mr. Ujjwal Choubey, Advocates For Respondents : Mr. Mukesh Sharma along with Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocates

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

02.05.2022

¶17

1. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing Annexure P-1 dated 27.02.2016 whereby the contractual engagement of petitioner was discontinued.

¶18

¶19

2. The writ petition was originally filed immediately after the impugned order Annexure P-1 was passed on 27.02.2016. The High Court while entertaining the writ petition vide its order dated 22.04.2016 had granted an interim protection to the petitioner maintaining status quo as it stood on 22.04.2016 so far as the employment of petitioner is concerned. The said interim protection is still in operation.

¶20

3. The necessary facts to be taken note of at this juncture are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Senior Marketing Executives (on contract) on 26.04.2010. The initial contract period was for a period of 3 years i.e. from 26.04.2010 to 25.04.2013. The initial engagement of petitioner on contractual basis had a renewal clause. The contract of petitioner was renewed at the first instance on 04.07.2013 for a further period of 3 years vide Annexure P-4. It is on conclusion of the said contract period that the impugned order was passed on 27.02.2016 intimating that the respondents do not intend to renew the contract any further and the service of petitioner stood discontinued on completion of the renewed period of contract on 25.04.2016. Thereafter, there has been no further renewal issued by the respondent-Corporation and by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court on 22.04.2016 the petitioner continues in employment even till date.

¶21

4. It is worthwhile to take note of the Scheme under which the recruitment of petitioner was made i.e. the Senior Marketing Executives (On Contract Basis) Scheme, 2009. Clause 3(b)of the said Scheme specifically deals with the renewal of contract. For ready reference the said Clause is being reproduced herein under:

¶22

“3.(b) Renewal of Contract

¶23

¶24

The contract may be further renewed for a period of three years subject to the satisfactory performance, suitability of the person during the contractual period and needs of the Corporation. In no case the contractual engagement shall be more than three terms.”

¶25

5. A plain perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the Scheme would clearly indicate that under no circumstances would the contractual engagement exceed for more than 3 terms of 3 years each.

¶26

6. The initial engagement of petitioner was of April, 2010. Three terms of three years each would make it nine years. In terms of the Scheme of contractual engagement, the petitioner could have worked under the respondents for a maximum terms i.e. only till April, 2019. Today, we are in May, 2022. The petitioner thus has put in by now more than 12 years of service i.e. that would come to around four contractual terms which otherwise is not permissible under the Scheme itself.

¶27

7. Counsel for petitioner referred to Annexure P-2 dated 05.12.2008 which is a model letter of recruitment for appointments to be made in the cadre of Administrative Officer/Branch Manager on contractual basis. The said letter reflects that the right of the respondent Corporation stood reserved in the event of a candidate whose services were found to be outstanding to be absorbed in the regular employment of LIC. Banking upon the said observation, learned counsel for petitioner submits that from the duties that have been discharged by the petitioner there has been nothing adverse which has been found by the respondents nor have the respondents decided to discontinue the services of petitioner for either unsatisfactory work or for under performance on the part of petitioner.

¶28

¶29

Therefore, it has to be presumed that the petitioner’s services were satisfactory enough and the respondents could have considered the case of petitioner for absorption.

¶30

8. To this submission by the counsel for petitioner, the respondents submit that it was only a prerogative available with the LIC. The said Clause could not have given any right in favour of petitioner for claiming absorption. In no case has the respondent LIC taken a decision for absorbing the services of petitioner. That as long as the LIC does not take a decision in this regard, the petitioner would always be governed by the provisions of the Scheme under which he was appointed and the conditions to the said Scheme. He submits that in the instant case, the petitioner by virtue of the interim protection granted by this Court has already remained in service much beyond the maximum permissible limit of service under the Scheme under which the petitioner was appointed. As such the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be accepted any further and the writ petition deserves to be rejected on this ground alone.

¶31

9. Learned counsel for respondent-Corporation further drew the attention of the Court to the model engagement letter so far as the engagement of Senior Marketing Executives (On Contract Basis) is concerned, where in Clause-17 it has been held as under: page 28 clause 17

¶32

“17. Your engagement as Senior Marketing Executive on contractual basis does not make you eligible for any preference for recruitment to any post or claim absorption/regularization in the permanent services of the Corporation. Your contractual engagement shall be covered under the life insurance Corporation of India Senior

¶33

¶34

Marketing Executives (On Contract Basis) Scheme, 2009 and as amended from time to time and such instructions as may be issued from time to time and you shall obey all orders and direction given to you in the course of official duties by person/persons under whose jurisdiction/superintendence or control you are placed from time to time.”

¶35

10. The said clause emphatically has made it clear that the petitioner does not have any indefeasible right for claiming regular recruitment under regular establishment of the respondent LIC. Further that the service conditions of petitioner would be governed purely under the aforementioned Scheme of 2009. Likewise, counsel for respondents have also referred to Clause 17 of the Scheme of 2009 so far as the applicability of the staff regulations are concerned, which again for ready reference is being reproduced hereinunder:

¶36

“17. Applicability of LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960

¶37

The provisions of LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 shall not be applicable to Senior Marketing Executives selected under this scheme. The engagement of Senior Marketing Executives shall be governed by such instructions as may be issued from time to time and the Senior Marketing Executives shall obey all orders and directions given to them in the course of official duties by person/persons under whose jurisdiction/superintendence or control they are placed from time to time.”

¶38

11. This again has in very categorical terms reflected that the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 would not be applicable to the petitioner or similarly placed persons on contractual basis. That they would be governed only by the Scheme under which they have been

¶39

¶40

appointed and the conditions attached thereto.

¶41

12. Given the aforesaid conditions to the engagement letter and also considering the Scheme under which the recruitment has been made this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner now has crossed much more than the maximum period of service that he could have rendered under the Scheme of 2009. The petitioner as such has lived his life in terms of the Scheme of 2009 and even beyond that and there is nothing further which could have been given to the petitioner. Anything beyond would amount to the engagement being contrary to the Scheme of 2009. In view of the fact that the petitioner against the maximum permissible limit of 9 years has already put in by now 12 years of service, there is nothing further that this Court can now grant to the petitioner at this juncture under the Scheme under which he was recruited. The writ petition therefore stands disposed of and the interim protection granted on 22.04.2016 also would stand vacated.

¶42

13. However, considering the length of service that the petitioner has put in with the respondents and also considering the fact that the services of petitioner do not seem to be unsatisfactory, it is left for the petitioner to approach the respondents for raising his claim for absorption under the regular establishment of the Corporation. Upon such claim being made, the respondents may consider the claim of petitioner purely in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the field of recruitment and the powers which are otherwise conferred upon the authorities concerned, on its own merits.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶45

Khatai

Shiv Kumar Dewangan v. Life Insurance Corporation Of India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Dewangan v. Life Insurance Corporation Of India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Khileshwari Sahu Vs Union of India

Umakant Chandrakar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

J. S. Rathia Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Vimla Bhaskar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Harnam Singh Odde Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. K. R. Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh