Dismissed

P.Sajikumar @ Saji v. the L.I.C. of India

Kerala HC14 Mar 2016OP/7109/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala dismissed a petition for regularisation of LIC employees under a Supreme Court order. The Court held the order did not mandate regularisation but provision for consideration under a specific scheme and directed disposal of pending petition allowing future consideration if conditions met.

What did the court decide?

O.P.No.7109 of 2001 dismissed; O.P.No.11289 of 2001 disposed of with direction to consider petitioner if he satisfies scheme requirements and is not over-aged.

P.Sajikumar @ Saji Vs the L.I.C. of India — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:-

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/24TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

O.P.No.7109 of 2001 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

P. SAJI KUMAR ALIAS SAJI,

¶8

FROM USHAKALA NILAYAM, PARAVILA, KOLLAMCODE, NOW RESIDING AT MAVARATHALA VEEDU, KANJIRAMPARA, KANJIRAMPARA P.O., VATTIYOORKAVU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.VADAKARA V.V.N.MENON SRI.T.N.SUKUMARAN.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶11

THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 'YOGAKSHEMA', JEEVAN BHIMA MARG, BOMBAY - 400 021.

¶12

THE CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, 'YOGAKSHEMA', JEEVAN BHIMA MARG, BOMBAY - 400 021.

¶13

THE ZONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, CHENNAI.

¶14

THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.S.EASWARAN

¶16

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-03-2016, ALONG WITH O.P.11289/2001-R, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶17

O.P.NO.7109 OF 2001-U

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶20

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.2.6.1994 IN O.P.NO.3279/1993 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.11.8.2000 IN O.P.NO.23075/2000-V BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN CIVIL APPEALS ARISING OUT OF S.L.P.(C) NOS.10393-10413/92 DATED 23.10.1992 IN PARVATHY & OTHERS V. THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANOTHER, BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 9.12.1992 IN I.D.NO.27/1991.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF ONE OF REPRESENTATION DT.21.5.2000 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER ALONG WITH FOUR OTHERS DATED 15.7.2000 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NUMBER NIL DATED 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2000 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P8	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 7.12.2000 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶22

---------------------------------------NIL.

Vku/-

[ true copy ]

K. Vinod Chandran, J

-----------------------------------------------------------O.P.Nos.7109 of 2001-U & 11289 of 2001-R

¶27

¶28

Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Both the petitioners seek regularisation in the services of the Life Insurance Corporation of India [for brevity “LIC”], based on an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court produced as Exhibit P3 in both the writ petitions. Both the petitioners claimed that they were intermittently appointed, with artificial break after 89 days, and hence they are entitled to be regularised.

¶31

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-LIC would, however, submit that no regularisation was directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court had merely directed consideration of the case of such persons as per the scheme produced by the LIC before the Supreme Court.

¶32

A reading of Exhibit P3 would indicate that the scheme applied only to ad hoc employees who had worked “between 20.05.1985 and till date for 85 days in any two consecutive calendar years” ( sic ). The order itself was passed on 23.10.1992. Hence, the claim would survive only with respect to

¶33

OP.Nos.7109/2001 & 11289/2001

¶34

¶35

those persons who were employed between 20.05.1985 and 23.10.1992.

¶36

With respect to the petitioner in O.P.No.7109 of 2001, the petitioner was employed long after the said date and he cannot have any claim for the same. With respect to the petitioner in O.P.No.11289 of 2001, he was engaged for the first time on 02.11.1988 and if he has 85 days service in two consecutive calendar years, he would be considered as in the case of another person in O.P.No.11706 of 2001 by judgment dated 18.08.2010. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said judgment was affirmed in W.A.No.83 of 2011. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-LIC submits that no subsequent selections have been conducted to the Class-IV post.

¶37

Hence, if the petitioner in O.P.No.11289 of 2001 satisfies the LIC that he is similarly situated as the petitioner in O.P.No.11706 of 2001 and is not over-aged, he shall be considered for appointment as and when selections are made. It is made clear that even the Supreme Court did not speak of regularisation and merely granted a provision for an age relaxation with respect to persons who were engaged temporarily within the periods specified.

¶38

OP.Nos.7109/2001 & 11289/2001

¶39

¶40

O.P.No.7109 of 2001 would stand dismissed.

¶41

O.P.No.11289 of 2001 would stand disposed of with the above

¶42

observations. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44