Partly allowed

Yoganandam v. Life Insurance Corporation of India

Kerala HC13 Oct 2021WP(C)/1286/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temporary Class III assistants of LIC challenged the one-time limited departmental examination prescribed for regularisation, and one petitioner challenged his termination for not appearing. The court upheld the examination pattern as simplified and consistent with the Supreme Court's directions, dismissed the batch, but set aside the termination and permitted that petitioner to appear.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P10 termination set aside; petitioner to continue in service till he appears for the examination; LIC to conduct the examination in Kerala and permit him to write it.

Yoganandam Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 21ST ASWINA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 26033 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 RAGHAVAN A AGED 50 YEARS S/O. UNNIKKORU (LATE) ASSISTANT (TEMPORARY) LIC OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN 679 329 2 B. KISHORE, AGED 47 YEARS S/O. K.V BALACHANDRAN (LATE) ASSISTANT (TEMPORARY) LIC OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN 673 121 3 SAM SUNDER S.S, AGED 47 YEARS S/O. J. SUNDARESAN, ASSISTANT (TEMPORARY),LIC OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4 SAJIMON K.N, AGED 50 YEARS S/O. K.K NARAYANAN, ASSISTANT (TEMPORARY),LIC OF INDIA KOTTAYAM I-BRANCH, KOTTAYAM (DIST) PIN 686 001 5 INDIRA T.M, AGED 50 YEARS D/O. MADHAVAN, ASSISTANT (TEMPORARY), LIC OF INDIA BRANCH VANDIPERIYAR, PIN 685 533 (KOTTAYAM DIVISION) 6 PREETHA PRABHAKARAN, AGED 45 YEARS D/O. T.G PRABHAKARAN, ASSISTANT (TEMPORARY), LIC OF INDIA, B.O VANDIPERIYAR, PIN 685 553 7 JAYASREE C.K, AGED 45 YEARS W/O. S.N VIJAYAKUMAR, ASSISTANT (TEMPORARY), LIC OF INDIA BRANCH OFFICE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA 689 121 8 SOBHANA C.M, AGED 52 YEARS W/O. P.V KUNJAN, ASSISTANT (TEMPORARY), LIC OF INDIA,

¶8

WP(C)Nos.26033/2020 & 1286/2021 2

¶9

BRANCH II OF STAR JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM

¶10

9 SHAINY P.A, AGED 50 YEARS W/O. AHMED KABIR P.U, ASSISTANT (TEMPORARY), LIC OF INDIA BRANCH OFFICE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA 689 121

¶11

10 BEENA S, AGED 52 YEARS W/O. SASEENDRAN K, ASSISTANT (TEMPORARY), LIC OF INDIA CHENGANNUR BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DIVISION, PIN 689 121

¶12

11 ASAMMA M.B, AGED 49 YEARS W/O. MUKESH KUMAR S, ASSISTANT (TEMPORARY), LIC OF INDIA BRANCH OFFICE THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA (DIST) PIN 689 101 (KOTTAYAM DIVISION) 12 SUNITHA KUMARY K, AGED 47 YEARS D/O. KARUNAKARAN NAIR C.K, TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC OF INDIA, PATHANAMTHITTA BRANCH, (KOTTAYAM DIVISION)

¶13

13 SOWMINI K, AGED 48 YEARS W/O. LATE MOHANKUMAR, TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC OF INDIA, PATHANAMTHITTA BRANCH (KOTTAYAM DIVISION)

¶14

14 REGHUNATH M.K, AGED 44 YEARS TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC OF INDIA, PATHANAMTHITTA BRANCH 15 MARIAMMA THOMAS, AGED 48 YEARS W/O. SARAD KUMAR M.K, TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC OF INDIA, RANNI BRANCH, OTHERA(1) SQUARE PERUMPUZHA P.O, RANNI 686 001 KOTTAYAM DIVISION 16 GIRIJA S.R, AGED 48 YEARS W/O. SUKULAL P.S, TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC OF INDIA, RANNI BRANCH, OTHERA (I) SQUARE, PERUMPUZHA P.O, RANNI 686 001

¶15

WP(C)Nos.26033/2020 & 1286/2021 3

¶16

KOTTAYAM DIVISION

¶17

17 SASEENDRA C.T, AGED 51 YEARS W/O. PRUSHPANGADAN S P (LATE) TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC OF INDIA, CHERTALA, ALAPPUZHA (DIST) PIN 685 24, DIVISION-ERNAKULAM

¶18

18 MINIMOL V.P, AGED 48 YEARS W/O. ANILKKUMAR S.P, TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC OF INDIA, , NO. II BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA, PIN 688 013, ERNAKULAM DIVISION

¶19

19 CHITRA V, AGED 46 YEARS W/O. R. SURESH,TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC OF INDIA, KOTTARAKKARA BRANCH, PIN 691 531 DIVISION-TRIVANDRUM

¶20

20 SUCHETHA B, AGED 50 YEARS W/O. SURESH T.K, TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC OF INDIA, KOTTARAKKARA BRANCH, PIN 691 531 DIVISIONTRIVANDRUM

¶21

21 MINI BHASKAR, AGED 46 YEARS W/O. MOHANAN PILLAI R, TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC OF INDIA, KOTTARAKKARA BRANCH, PIN 691 531 TRIVANDRUM DIVISION

¶22

22 PADMAJA R, AGED 47 YEARS W/O. BABU S, TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC OF INDIA, DO, TRIVANDRUM, PIN 695 004 (EDMS DEPOT)

¶23

23 N. HANNAL, AGED 50 YEARS W/O. REV. D. ALBERT JOHN, TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC OF INDIA, P AND GS DEPARTMENT, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM PIN 695 004

¶24

24 SHEELA M, AGED 50 YEARS W/O. JAMES ALFRED DAS M, TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC

¶25

WP(C)Nos.26033/2020 & 1286/2021 4

¶26

OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MICRO INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM, PATTOM P.O 695 004

¶27

25 S.A VIJAYALEKSHMY AGED 46 YEARS W/O. SHAJI S.T, TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC OF INDIA, NEYYATTINKARA BRANCH, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION

¶28

N.SHEEJA, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. C.SUNDARESAN TEMPORARY ASSISTANT,LIC OF INDIA,KILIMANOOR BRANCH OFFICE

¶29

27 RAJIKA R, AGED 48 YEARS W/O. LOUJI KUMAR S.R, TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC OF INDIA, D O TRIVANDRUM P AND GS DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM

¶30

28 RAMA V.R, AGED 48 YEARS W/O. K.S RADHAKRISHNAN, TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC OF INDIA, MUNDAKAYAM BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DIVISION

¶31

29 NADEERA V.A, AGED 48 YEARS W/O. LATE SAJIMON M.A,TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC OF INDIA, MUNDAKAYAM BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DIVISION

¶32

30 GEETHA K. WARRIER, AGED 49 YEARS W/O. G.SREEKUMAR, TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC OF INDIA, CHANGANACHERY BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DIVISION

¶33

31 BINDU P.G, AGED 44 YEARS W/O. CHANDRABABU K.K, TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC OF INDIA, PATHANAMTHITTA BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DIVISION.

¶34

32 BABU K, AGED 49 YEARS S/O. DEVASIA OUSEPH, TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC OF INDIA, NEDUMKANDAM BRANCH, NEDUMKANDAM P.O, IDUKKI 685 553 KOTTAYAM DIVISION

¶35

33 RAJI V, AGED 47 YEARS W/O. SANTHOSH KUMAR, TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC OF

¶36

WP(C)Nos.26033/2020 & 1286/2021 5

¶37

INDIA, CITY BRANCH NO. 4, OPP SVM SCHOOL, TRIVANDRUM 695 001 TRIVANDRUM DIVISION

¶38

34 GANESAN T.V, AGED 51 YEARS S/O. M AMBU, TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC KASARGOD BRANCH, KASARGOD P.O 671 121

¶39

35 SHEEJA C, AGED 50 YEARS W/O. DINESH KUMAR T, TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC OF INDIA, NILAMBUR BRANCH, NILAMBUR P.O, MALAPPURAM 679 329

¶40

36	ANILKUMAR T, AGED 52 YEARS W/O. M. ARAVINDAKSHAN P.V, TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC BRANCH MANJERI, MANJERI P.O, MALAPPURAM 676 121
37	BHAVANI U, AGED 51 YEARS W/O. KUNHIKRISHNAN T.,V, TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC BRANCH TALIPARAMBA, TALIPARAMBA P.O, KANNUR 670 141
38	PREENA K, AGED 52 YEARS W/O. (LATE) RAVINDRAN E, TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC NILESHWAR BRANCH, NILESHWAR P.O, KASARGOD 671 314
39	VIJAYA LAKSHMI M.V, AGED 47 YEARS W/O. BHARATHAN K.V, TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC KANHANGAD BRANCH, KASARGOD 671 315
40	DEEPA K, AGED 47 YEARS W/O. M. SANTHOSH, TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC NILESHWAR BRANCH, KASARGOD 671 314
41	VALSAMMA JOHN, AGED 50 YEARS W/O. MICHAEL, TEMPORARY ASSISTANT, LIC TALIPARAMBA BRANCH, TALIPARAMBA P.O, KANNUR 670 704

¶41

WP(C)Nos.26033/2020 & 1286/2021 6

¶42

BY ADVS. KALEESWARAM RAJ SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY KUM.A.ARUNA KUM.THULASI K. RAJ SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE

¶43

RESPONDENTS:

¶44

1 LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA CENTRAL OFFICE) NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021

¶45

2 MANAGING DIRECTOR, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CENTRAL OFFICE) NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021

¶46

3 ZONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, LIC BUILDING, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI 600 002

¶47

4 SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, JEEVAN PRAKASH, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004

¶48

5 SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, NAGAPADOM, KOTTAYAM 686 001

¶49

6 SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, JEEVAN PRAKASH, LIC ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673 001

¶50

BY ADV SRI.S.EASWARAN

¶51

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).1286/2021, THE COURT ON 13/10/2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶52

WP(C)Nos.26033/2020 & 1286/2021 7

¶53

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶54

PRESENT

¶55

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶56

WEDNESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 21ST ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 1286 OF 2021

¶57

PETITIONER:

¶58

YOGANANDAM AGED 57 YEARS ASSISTANT, LIC OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE, VANDIPERIYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685533, S/O. KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT 204, ANAND HOUSE, PAMBANAR P.O., PEERMADE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685531.

¶59

BY ADVS. KALEESWARAM RAJ SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE KUM.A.ARUNA

¶60

RESPONDENTS:

¶61

1 LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021.

¶62

2 MANAGING DIRECTOR, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CENTRAL OFFICE, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021.

¶63

3 ZONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LIC BUILDING, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600002.

¶64

4 SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NAGAMPADOM, KOTTAYAM-686001.

¶65

BY ADV SRI.S.EASWARAN

¶66

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR

¶67

WP(C)Nos.26033/2020 & 1286/2021 8

¶68

ADMISSION ON 28.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).26033/2020, THE COURT ON 13/10/2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶69

WP(C)Nos.26033/2020 & 1286/2021 9

¶70

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶71

[WP(C) Nos.26033/2020, 1286/2021]

¶72

The writ petitioners joined service of the respondent – Life Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “LIC” for short) as assistants, in different years after 1996. Their appointment in class-III posts was through the Employment Exchange. Their services continued and are in service even now. It is claimed that several petitioners have completed around 20 years of service in LIC. Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) No. 26033/2020 is the appointment order given to one of the petitioners. Several employees in the LIC, who were so employed filed W.P.(C) No.5843/2009 seeking regularization of their service. The learned single Judge, by Ext.P2 judgment dated 24/7/2019 observed that the LIC should consider the question whether the petitioners can be absorbed into service, on the strength of the directions contained in paragraph 53 of State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi & others(2006 (4) SCC 1). It was held that if they are not entitled to be absorbed, they shall continue to be in service till new recruitment process was initiated and concluded. It was further directed that, if LIC takes a decision against regularization and propose to conduct a fresh process of appointment, then the petitioners will be entitled to be considered on a preferential basis taking note of their experience.The LIC by Ext.P3 and identical orders, rejected the requests of the petitioners for regularization.

¶73

Ext.P3 and similar orders rejecting the prayer for regularisation

¶74

WP(C)Nos.26033/2020 & 1286/2021 10

¶75

were challenged by the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No.42121/2018. A learned Single Judge of this court by Ext.P5 judgment directed the LIC to reconsider the case of the petitioners for regularisation, as a one time measure, in the light of Umadevi's case by conducting a separate test exclusively for the petitioners. This judgment dated 8/1/2020 took note of the pendency of certain identical proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court during the relevant time and had also taken note of the directions of the Supreme Court in LIC of India v. Sudhakar C.A..No.2104/2000 reported in (2001(2) suppl. JT 143), E.Prabavati & others v. LIC of India & others (CA 4564 to 454/1992 ) and also the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court in C ivil Appeal No.2268/2011 and connected cases.

¶76

Ext.P5 judgment was challenged by the LIC in W.A.No.64/2020. While so, by Exts.P6 to P8 orders, the Apex Court passed certain directions in C.A.Nos2268/2011 and connected matters, which will be referred to as Hashmuddin & Others v. LIC & others (Civil Appeal No.2268/2011 ) and connected matters. By those orders, a scheme was directed to be formulated for conducting an examination for regularising such contract employees and the proposals submitted by the LIC in relation to it was accepted by the Supreme Court. While disposing of the appeals, the LIC brought to the notice of ,the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there were cases by parties similarly situated, pending in different High Courts and it would be appropriate to put a quietus to the matter

¶77

WP(C)Nos.26033/2020 & 1286/2021 11

¶78

even in those cases. The Supreme Court, by Ext.P8 order directed that the appropriate course of action would be to the LIC to file an application in those proceedings based on the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, so that such claimants can also get the benefit of the order .

¶79

Accordingly, LIC filed Ext.P9 affidavit before the Division Bench in W.A.No.64/2020. It was pointed out in the affidavit that 44 vacancies would kept open in order to accommodate the petitioners in the writ petition. It was submitted that LIC had proposed to conduct a qualifying examination as undertaken before the Supreme Court and necessary orders will be passed for regularising the service. This affidavit was recorded by the Division Bench and accordingly, the Writ Appeal was closed, accepting the request of the LIC that the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Ext.P5 shall not be treated as a precedent. It was further directed that the petitioners shall not be terminated until the results of the examination which was agreed to be conducted. In the affidavit, the LIC has undertaken that the examination process in accordance with the scheme placed before the Supreme Court would be completed within the time stipulated by the Apex Court and necessary steps would be taken for extension of time. Accordingly, by Ext.P9(a) judgment, writ appeal was closed.

¶80

In the light of the above, the LIC proceeded to conduct a limited one time examination for recruitment of Assistant Class – III, in terms of the order in the judgment in CA No.4703 – 4735/2016 (LIC of India v.

¶81

WP(C)Nos.26033/2020 & 1286/2021 12

¶82

Jaga Devi & Others). Accordingly, Exts.P10 to P51 call letters were issued to the parties to the writ proceedings. It was informed that, a limited one time departmental examination will be held, only for the original petitioners and the appellants in Supreme Court/High Courts who were working as temporary Class-III employees found eligible to appear in the one time limited examination in terms of the order referred above. It was directed that it would apply only to temporary class III employees who have been in service continuously for more than ten years, engaged as per Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employment of Temporary staff) Instructions 1993. It was, inter alia, informed that the tentative date of examination was 29/11/2020 and venue of examination was Chennai.

¶83

On receipt of all the above call letters, the writ petitioners in W.P. (C)No.26033/2020 approached this court challenging the process of examination. It was, inter alia, contended that fixing the venue of examination at Chennai was absolutely improper in the light of spread the Covid-19 Pandemic. It is pertinent to note that among the employees of the LIC in Kerala, who were called for the examination, the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1286/2021 was not a party to W.P.(C) No.26033/2020.

¶84

7.The Writ Petition No.26033/2020 was filed on 24/11/2020 prior to the proposed date of examination. On 26/11/2020, when the matter came up before the learned Single judge, after hearing both sides, it was held that the proposal on the part of the LIC to conduct examination at

¶85

WP(C)Nos.26033/2020 & 1286/2021 13

¶86

Chennai could not be justified. It was taken note of the fact that, that was a time when Covid 19 pandemic was at its peak and the possibility of the parties who have to write examination have to undergo quarantine prior to the examination may pose serious difficulties to the examinees. The court opined that, as far as Kerala was concerned, the LIC must conduct an online examination in a centre to be suitably fixed within the State to ensure that prejudice was not caused to the petitioners. The court directed the LIC to ensure that the petitioners were afforded a centre in Kerala, so as to enable them to write the examination scheduled on 29/11/2020. It was further directed that if that proposal was not found possible, then they should conduct a fresh examination for the

¶87

petitioners in a centre in Kerala in such manner as they were advised. It seems that, in the light of this situation, the examination was conducted as proposed on 29/11/2020 for the candidates belonging to other States. In the present writ petition, the proposal to conduct the examination as mentioned in Ext.P10 and P11 is under challenge. In the meanwhile, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1286/2021, who is a similarly situated employee of LIC in Kerala, took leave from his office to attend the examination which was proposed to be conducted at Chennai. However, he did not appear for the examination. Hence, by Ext.P10 order, the temporary employment of the writ petitioner W.P.(C) No.1286/2021 was terminated by the LIC on the ground that though he applied for the examination and went to Chennai

¶88

WP(C)Nos.26033/2020 & 1286/2021 14

¶89

for the examination to attend the examination, but did not participate in the examination. Hence it was presumed that he was not interested in securing the employment. Ext.P10 is assailed by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that Ext.P10 was not legally sustainable and also on the ground that examination proposed to be held on 29/11/2020 was not in accordance with the directions contained in the Supreme Court order.

¶90

Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioners and the learned counsel for the LIC. Both the writ petitions were heard together and is disposed of by this common judgment, since the facts are same and issues are intermingled.

¶91

There is no dispute regarding the essential facts that led to the proposed examination on 29/11/2020. It is on record that except the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1286/2021, all other temporary Class III cadre employee of the LIC in Kerala who were offered examination on 29/11/2020 are parties to W.P.(C) No.26033/2020. The only question that is germane for consideration in W.P.(C) No.26033/2020 is whether the examination that was proposed by the LIC is in accordance with the directions contained in the Supreme Court. To narrow down the issues involved, the learned counsel for the petitioners had projected ten specific grounds to contend that the examination was not in accordance with the directions. Those grounds, as are available in para 13 of the writ petition ,are referred as follows:

¶92

I). In the impugned orders, there is not even a whisper regarding the

¶93

WP(C)Nos.26033/2020 & 1286/2021 15

¶94

directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 orders, regarding the nature of the examination to be conducted. This shows that, respondents deliberately ignored those orders and the directions contained in it.

¶95

ii). Venue of the examination was set at Chennai. All the petitioners, who are working in various districts of Kerala, are directed to go to Chennai. This itself will make it difficult for the employees to appear for the examination due to the difficulties in making travel arrangements to Chennai, stay arrangements in Chennai due to the heavy spread of Covid-19 in India, especially in Chennai.

¶96

Iii). When the respondents could have conducted written test easily in the respective divisions as it was done on earlier similar situations earlier(for eg.Test for regularization conducted for Class IV employees in 2012, a simple and easy departmental test was conducted for them at ech divisions). An Online test is proposed to be conducted in Chennai, to make it very much difficult for the petitioners.

¶97

iv). The test is divided into four sections, mandating separate pass in each sections. This increases the difficulty level of the examination, to a level much higher than that was directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. v). For each section, separate minimum time is fixed, making it very stressful for the employees to give the test. Instead of fixing a maximum duration for the entire test, each section has now a maximum duration.

¶98

WP(C)Nos.26033/2020 & 1286/2021 16

¶99

vi). Negative marks will be imposed for the incorrect answer. This evidently is a malicious move to make the difficulty level of the examination higher than what was directed by the Hon'ble supreme Court.

¶100

vii). Pre recruitment medical examination is ordered for the successful persons in the test, which is unwarranted and unnecessary for the persons like petitioners, who are already employed by the respondents for more than a decade.

¶101

viii). As per condition No.6 of Exts.P10 to P50, the respondents have stated that, the petitioners shall not be eligible to claim any benefit regarding their past service as temporary employees other than those mentioned in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 6/3/2020. In the said order, the Supreme Court had directed to count the period spent in temporary status post 12 years, from the initial date of appointment on the temporary basis towards the fixation of pay on a permanent basis with all consequential benefits without any backwages. It was also directed that the benefit of backwages will accrue from 31/12/2016. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that “On the aspect of gratuity, contributory pension etc.we are not specifically dealing with as that will depend in turn on the provisions of the Scheme, provisions of the Act and Regulation concerned and that can be worked on that basis” . Now the stand of the respondent is confusing is much as Ext.P10 to Ext.P50 says no benefits other than the benefits provided by the Supreme Court will be given. The respondents,

¶102

WP(C)Nos.26033/2020 & 1286/2021 17

¶103

will have to give the petitioners gratuity, pensionary benefits, etc. as per the relevant Act, Regulations etc.

¶104

ix). The clause that, if the petitioners do not apply or are not successful in limited examination shall cease to be in the employment of Life Insurance Corporation of India also is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. The respondents cannot arbitrarily include such clauses.

¶105

x). The test is not in vernacular. The syllabus is neither limited nor the syllabus is published in advance. For the petitioners to prepare well for the examination, the syllabus will have to be published at least one month prior to the examination.

¶106

10.Vehemently assailing Exts.P10 to P15 as unjust, illegal and arbitrary, and canvasing for a direction to the respondents to conduct written test of standard lesser than as fixed in Exts.P10 to P15, in vernacular, at each division of the first respondent, with no separate minimum for sections of test , no separate maximum duration for section test and no negative marks from a limited syllabus, published at least one month prior to the examination. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the examination now proposed was contrary to the directions contained in Exts.P6 to P8. The learned counsel further contended that the attempt of the LIC was to deny the regularization to the employees. The learned counsel canvased that a beneficial direction by the Supreme Court cannot be converted into a measure of

¶107

WP(C)Nos.26033/2020 & 1286/2021 18

¶108

deterrence and an institution like LIC is expected to be a model employer. To support it, the learned counsel relied on the decisions reported in Leela Amma v. Managing Director, KSHD Corporation Ltd., (2014 (4) KHC 831) and Union of India v. Vartak Labour Unin (2011 4 SCC 200) . The learned counsel contended that very scheme of the examination, in which four papers were to be answered, the time, the awarding of negative marks, conducting the examination in English, prescribing of minimum time for each paper and providing individual cut off marks for each paper, directly strikes at the directions contained in Exts.P6 and P7 orders of the Supreme Court, which were adopted in Ext.P8. It was contended that, the LIC by Ext.P9 affidavit, has undertaken to conduct an examination in the light of directions contained in Exts.P6 to Ext.P8. However, they have prescribed a higher difficult level of examination. It was further contended that negative marks are provided only in highly competitive examination and attitude of the employer was contrary to the directions given by the Supreme Court that the employer shall not be vindictive.

¶109

It seems that, regarding Exts.P6 to P8 orders, some clarification is required as the petitioner seems to be under a misapprehension that directions contained in Exts.P6 and P7 are as such applicable in the present case. Ext.P6 relates to order of the Supreme Court is Hashmuddin & others v LIC (Civil Appeal No.2268/2011) which was considered by the Supreme Court along with other proceedings. The

¶110

WP(C)Nos.26033/2020 & 1286/2021 19

¶111

learned counsel relied on Ext.P6 and certain directions contained therein. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it was provided that a limited examination shall be conducted for the temporary employees, who were working in the LIC for more than five years and who had possessed minimum eligible qualification and the age as prescribed at the relevant time of their entry into LIC of India. For this purpose, LIC was directed to hold a limited written examination in the vernacular language, with a limited syllabus, to be announced in advance. While approving this, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ext.P6 had further directed that the standard of examination should be such standard that persons who have left academic studies long back, but have earned practical experience for a long number of years, can take the examination with some amount of confidence of their success. Ext.P7 was in continuation of Ext.P6 order. It directed the LIC to frame a scheme within the stipulated time as set out in the judgment. Ext.P8 relates to the order in The Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others v. Jagadevi & Ors(CA No.4703- 4735/2016). Exts.P6 and P7, which the learned counsel for the petitioners heavily relied on were in fact in relation to temporary class IV employees of the LIC recruited for working in the States of U.P.and Uttarakhand alone. This is clear from the 4^th paragraph of Ext.P6, wherein the Supreme Court had held that all other matters were detagged. Consequently, the directions earlier referred to were strictly in relation to Class IV employees. Hence, the observation to

¶112

WP(C)Nos.26033/2020 & 1286/2021 20

¶113

conduct an examination, in a limited written examination in vernacular language with the limited syllabus to be announced in advance was with reference to the scheme of absorption of Class IV employees. This is also clear from page 6 of Ext.P6. Further direction that the examination shall be of such standard that persons who have left academic studies long back, but have earned practical experience for a long number of years was also with reference to class IV employees.

¶114

However, as mentioned above, Ext.P8 refers to the decision in another matter which was Jagadevi's case. In that , following the amicable resolution of a matter in that case, the attention of the court was drawn by the LIC to the earlier order of Supreme court in Hasmuddin's case dated 20/10/2016 and 15/1/2020, which are respectively Exts.P6 and P7 herein. After referring to the limited departmental examination ordered by the Supreme Court by Exts.P6 and P7 orders, the Supreme Court dealt with the case of employees covered in Jagadevi's case. The operative portion of Ext.P8 order is extracted as follows;

¶115

“Such a departmental examination would not include candidates from open market and would be applicable to only in cases where the persons had completed 10 years of continuous service as temporary Class III employees in accordance with instructions. Naturally, this examination would have to be cleared by such temporary class III employees for seeking regularization.

¶116

The position which will emerge on their qualifying would be as per para 7 of the order dated 15/1/2020 in Hashmuddin (supra) and for convenience of reference, the same is reproduced as under:

¶117

“We are thus of the view that the appellants should be entitled to the counting of their period spent in temporary status post twelve years from their initial date of appointment on the temporary basis towards

¶118

WP(C)Nos.26033/2020 & 1286/2021 21

¶119

the fixation of their pay on a permanent basis with all consequential benefits without any back wages(the benefit will accrue from 31^st December,2016). On aspects of gratuity, contributory pension etc. we are not specifically dealing with as that will depend in turn on the provisions of the Scheme, provisions of the Act and Regulation concerned and that can be worked out on that basis “.

¶120

The aforesaid process can be commenced with the examination to be held within three months and the process be completed within three months thereafter.“

¶121

Evidently, Ext.P8 order though referred to Exts.P6 and P7, did not carry forward all the directions contained in Exts.P6 and P7. Evidently, most of the grounds set up by the learned counsel for the petitioners were not contemplated by Ext.P8 order. However, after taking note of the above directions, the Supreme Court took note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that several other cases were pending in different High Courts at the instance of similarly situated parties and it would be appropriate to put a quietus to the matter even in those cases. Answering this, the Supreme Court held that the appropriate course of action would be to file an affidavit in those proceedings based on the order passed by the Supreme Court in Ext.P8, so that those claimants can also get the benefit of the order. In other words, the LIC, as far as the class -III employees who were the subject matter of concern, was bound by Ext.P8 order. Thereafter, Ext.P9 affidavit was filed before this Court wherein it was requested that, limited departmental examination for the petitioners in the present writ petitions

¶122

WP(C)Nos.26033/2020 & 1286/2021 22

¶123

who have been in service for more than ten continuous service can be conducted and based on the result, they will be regularized in the services of the Corporation. Once the petitioners qualified for regularization, their temporary period post 12 years will be counted for fixation of pay with all consequential benefits without any backwages in consonance with the Hon'ble Apex Court's order dated 15/1/2020 in CA No.2268/2011. After referring to the above in the affidavit, it was requested that the Division Bench may take note of the affidavit and to dispose of the writ appeal holding that on the basis of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.4703-4735/2016 and connected cases, the writ petitions will be allowed to participate in the limited departmental examination to be conducted by the Corporation as a one time measure.

¶124

The factual situation that emerges now is that the mode of examination and the modalities of the examination are clearly circumscribed by the scheme framed and approved by the Hon'ble court, order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ext.P8 and Ext.P9 affidavit which was accepted by the Division Bench by Ext.P9(a) judgment.

¶125

Having considered the above, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel specifically under points I, IV, V and X, claiming the examination in vernacular language, advance publication of the syllabus, that it should take care of the observations regarding the nature of syllabus etc. are without any basis and cannot be accepted. The further contention in Point VIII that Exts.P10 – P51 are silent about the various

¶126

WP(C)Nos.26033/2020 & 1286/2021 23

¶127

benefits like gratuity,etc.is not sustainable now. Supreme Court has held that such benefits will depend on the scheme, Act and Regulations. Hence, the anxiety of the petitioner at this stage is premature.

¶128

The LIC in its counter affidavit had vehemently contended that the examination was proposed strictly in accordance with the directions contained in the affidavit and also the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was pointed out that all the arguments set up by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the examination was beyond the reach of persons who have left the colleges long back and beyond the comprehension of such employees, that the examination was cumber some cannot also lie. The learned counsel for the Corporation pointed out that the identical examination which was announced and proposed to be held along with the examination for the petitioners, was conducted on the prescribed day itself, for the States of Telengana, Andhra Pradesh Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. There was absolutely no complaint from any candidate. In each of such States, one District Centre was fixed. It was further pointed out that, the method of conducting the recruitment examination was similar in the pattern currently followed for the Assistants Recruitment examination, as per the Board's approved instructions. It was stated that the method of conducting the recruitment examination has changed over a period and recruitment examination was presently conducted on line, owing to its several benefits like minimized security threat or use of unfair means , safety and security of data etc.,

¶129

¶130

over paper based written examination. Further it was pointed out that, in Ext.P8 the direction of the Apex Court was to conduct a limited departmental examination and not paper based written examination. The fixing of venue of online examination was set at Zonal Headquarters at Chennai and Hyderabad based on administrative feasibility, availability of net work and hardware resources and the number of candidates appearing for the examination, so as to complete the process, hassle free. It was stated that all other eligible candidates from various divisions across the Andhra Pradesh, Telengana, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu attended the one line examination conducted by the Corporation at the Zonal Headquarters at Chennai and Hyderbad. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the Corporation that from none of these States, any complaint was raised and since it is a time tested method of examination,the apprehension of the petitioners is without any basis. I find this explanation to be rational, justified and stands to reason.

¶131

The issue regarding the conduct of the examination at Chennai is now no longer an issue. It has been specifically mentioned, and also affirmed by the learned counsel for the Corporation at the time of hearing that they are ready and willing to conduct the examination for the candidates from Kerala at a convenient place in Kerala. Necessarily, the Corporation is bound to conduct the examination as undertaken. The request set up by the petitioners for conducting examination in each Divisio, is practically impossible, considering the availability of computers

¶132

¶133

and accessories and the less number of candidates involved. Petitioners have a further grievance that if due to valid reasons any candidate is unable to write examination, candidate stands to the risk of being terminated. I find no basis in that anxiety. If for any valid and justifiable reasons, beyond the control of the candidate, he is disabled from attending the examination and acts bona fide, there is no reason why he should be terminated, unless he is given one more opportunity.

¶134

Regarding the subjects for examination, nature of question of papers, minimum marks for each paper and the timings etc., lengthy arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. This court is aware of the limitation of courts in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to delve into the scope of such an argument. Remindful of the above limitation, still this court is inclined to go into the question, on a broader perspective to ascertain whether there is any substance in the argument that the syllabus, the time, the number of questions are totally contrary to the directions of the Supreme Court. From the counter affidavit of the LIC it is evident that, the procedure adopted by the LIC for the proposed examination is at par with the procedure prescribed for regular recruitment. However, since it is a one time measure, a limited departmental examination was proposed. In otherwords, the test proposed for the petitioners is almost identical and par with the subjects, the number of questions, marks and duration of examination with appropriate modifications, to simply the

¶135

¶136

procedure. As per the LIC instructions, the pattern for the main examination, for the direct recruitment of assistant, consisted of four papers; General/financial awareness, general English, competitive aptitude and reasoning ability, and computer aptitude. It seems that for the limited examination for the petitioners, the syllabus has been slightly simplified. The first paper is confined to general awareness, instead of general and financial awareness. Second paper remains the same. The third paper competitive aptitude and reasoning ability has been simplified as numerical aptitude. The fourth paper, which was reasoning ability and computer aptitude has been simplified and is confined to principles and practice of life insurance, which is essentially the subject, which the petitioners have been regularly dealing with for the last several years.

¶137

It is also pertinent to note that the total number of questions in all four papers together, for the open merit candidates were 200, whereas it has been reduced to 150, for the limited departmental examination. The total marks for the general examination for the candidates from the open market was 200, whereas the total mark for the limited departmental examination was reduced to 150. The total duration for all the four papers together for open market candidates was two and half hours, whereas, it has been reduced to two hours for the limited departmental examination. The qualifying marks for each paper has been reduced to 35% from 40%.

¶138

An overall evaluation of the above facts clearly show that in all

¶139

¶140

respects, the limited departmental examination proposed for the present candidates has been simplified, than what was prescribed for the open merit candidates. In this regard, it cannot be forgotten that though the petitioners have left their educational institutions long back, they have the added advantage of better experience, attainment of more maturity and becoming more generally aware over the passage of time.

¶141

The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously assailed the provision for awarding negative marks. It was contended by the learned counsel that the petitioners are at a more disadvantaged position, since negative marks are provided. The LIC in this regard, had taken up a contention that negative marking was set, because after qualifying the objective test the candidates are straightway selected without an interview. The learned counsel for the petitioners advanced the argument that providing negative marks is not an equivalent substitute for not conducting an interview. Hence, on that ground alone, provision for negative marks was liable to be set aside, it was argued. It is true that providing negative marks is not the appropriate substitute for avoiding interview. However, I am inclined to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the Corporation that since the successful candidates in the departmental examination are not subjected to personal interview and interaction, the rigor of such a test, is sought to be reasonably balanced by providing negative marks in the examination.

¶142

Yet another contention forcefully advanced by the learned

¶143

¶144

counsel for the petitioners was that the very purpose of entire exercise should be to regularize the experienced persons like the petitioners. The LIC had already benefited out their experience and generally, it is in the best interest of the LIC, to retain such experienced hands. It was contended by the learned counsel that in this background, the examination had to be more simple. The learned counsel for the petitioners further pointed out that the limited departmental examination was subject to the condition that if a candidate does not attempt the examination or if he fails in the examination, he was likely to be terminated from service. This casts very high pressure on the candidates, it was contended. According to the learned counsel, in the present scenario, a candidate appearing for the limited departmental examination was totally different from the open market candidate, since in the latter case the options before the candidate is either getting the job or not getting the job, whereas in the case of petitioners, they stand at the risk of loosing his present employment. Viewed from this angle, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the examination has to be more fair, simple and pro candidate.

¶145

I am not attracted by the above arguments for the reasons mentioned earlier. Further,the object of the examination cannot be the en bloc selection of all the candidates. The examination cannot conducted as a mere ritual. Definitely, it should have the minimum object of weeding out the absolutely meritless candidates. Above all, identical examination

¶146

¶147

was conducted without any complaints for all other South Indian States . Further, the examination seems to be more simple than the written examination for the open market candidates.

¶148

Another argument set up by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that pre recruitment medical examination of short listed candidates as mandated by the said Rule cannot be insisted in the case at hand. It was contended that a reading of Rule 9 of LIC Staff Rules 1960 provides that preceding an appointment, medical examination is mandatory. Answering this, the learned counsel for the Corporation invited my attention to Rule 9 of LIC of India Staff Rules 1960 , which provides that no person shall be appointed to the service of the Corporation, unless he has been certified by the qualified medical practitioner approved by the Corporation to be sound and medically fit to discharge his duties. Having considered this, I am inclined to reject the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners advanced to challenge the examination for the petitioners. However, LIC has to bear in mind that all the above candidates have been working in LIC for the past several years. Till now, they must have proved themselves to be medically fit during this period. Hence, the normal age related medical issues that might have developed, by now, if any, should not be a ground to deny confirmation.

¶149

W.P.(C)1286/2021

¶150

The petitioner herein was employed as an assistant in the LIC

¶151

¶152

on 1/8/2000, through the Employment Exchange. He stands on the same footing as the writ petitioners in W P.(C) No.26033/2020, though not a party to that writ petition. Pursuant to the test for regularization of the temporary employees, Ext.P5 notification was issued to the petitioner, informing him about the examination. He submitted Ext.P6 application. After availing leave, he went to Chennai on 25/11/2021 to attend the examination which was proposed to be conducted on 29/11/2021. Ext.P7 is the hall ticket issued to him. According to the petitioner, after reaching Chennai, he was informed that an interim order was passed by the High Court of Kerala on 26/11/2020 in W.P.(C) No.26033/2020. He was informed that examination for persons from Kerala would be separately conducted in Kerala. On getting this information, without attending the examination, he returned to Kerala due to the pandemic, that was graver in Chennai. Subsequently, he got Ext.P10 notice dated 14/1/2021, by which his service was terminated on the ground that he was not interested in appearing for the examination. Ext.P10 is under challenge in the present writ petition. The relief sought is to quash Ext.P10 and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue as an assistant. Yet another relief sought is to permit him to write the examination.

¶153

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had received the communication and after availing leave, the petitioner had gone to Chennai. The petitioner was not party to W.P.(C)26033/2020. The above

¶154

¶155

facts clearly show that the petitioner had an intention to write the examination. His claim was that on reaching Chennai, he was informed that an order has been passed by the High Court directing that the examination shall be conducted in Kerala for candidates from Kerala. Hence he returned to Kerala, without writing the examination.

¶156

The above contention of the petitioner was vehemently attacked by the LIC contending that there is no bona fide in his case. The explanation offered for not writing the examination is not at all acceptable. According to the counsel, even after returning from Chennai, he did not inform the LIC about the circumstances under which he did not write the examination. He waited till Ext.P10 was issued on 14/1/2021 and thereafter approached this court on 26/2/2021 with the present writ petition. This delay evidences his lack of bona fides. It was contended that for reasons best known to the petitioner, he voluntarily kept away from writing the examination.

¶157

As mentioned above, the clear intention of the petitioner seems to be that he was to write the examination. The petitioner also did not join with the remaining persons who had approached this court, challenging the examination. What exactly transpired at Chennai and what was the circumstances under which he returned from Chennai are not clear, except the version set up by the writ petitioner. It is true that he did not intimate the LIC about the reason that prompted him to leave Chennai. It is also a fact that an order was passed by the High Court of

¶158

¶159

Kerala on that day. Having considered this, I feel that it cannot be presumed that a person who voluntarily takes the pain of proceeding for the examination without joining with others, is not likely to take the risk of not writing the examination unless there is cogent reason . It is not likely that such a person thereafter would take a calculated risk unless he believed that there was a stay of examination. In that background the explanation offered by the petitioner appears to be believable. Having considered this, I feel that even assuming that his version to be false, at the most it can only be an error of the judgment which I feel that is liable to be condoned. In this context, I am inclined to hold that Ext.P10 is liable to be set aside.

¶160

Having evaluated the entire facts, I am satisfied that the W.P.(C) No.26033/2020 lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. LIC shall conduct the examination in Kerala, at the earliest. W.P(C) No.1286/2021 is allowed. Ext.P10 is set aside and the petitioner will continue in service as an assistant, till he appears for the examination and subject to the outcome of the examination. The LIC shall permit him to write the examination proposed to be conducted along with all other writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No.26033/2020.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

Judge

dpk

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1286/2021

¶167

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶168

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 26.7..... ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2016 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2268/2011 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.1.2020 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2268/2011 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.3.2020 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4703-4735/2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 6.11.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 26.11.2020 IN WP(C) 26033/2020.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.12.2020 IN WA 1715/2020.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 14.1.2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER.

¶169

¶170

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

¶171

EXT.R1(A): COPY OF THE LEAVE APPLICATION DATED 20/11/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶172

EXT.R1(B): COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS LIC OF INDIA BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2268 OF 2011

¶173

¶174

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26033/2020

¶175

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶176

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24-07- 2018 IN W.P(C) NO. 5843/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-11-2018 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN COMPLAINCE WITH THE ORDER DATED 5-2- 2014 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE LIC IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. 8748 OF 2011 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2268/2011
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08-01- 2020 IN WP(C) 42121/2018
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-10-2016 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2268/2011 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15-01-2020 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2268/2011 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06-03-2020 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS 4703-4735/2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE SECRETARY (LEGAL) LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, SOUTHERN ZONAL LEGAL CELL, DIVISION OFFICE AT ERNAKULAM BEFORE THIS COURT ON 17-06- 2020 IN WA 64/2020
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29-06- 2020 IN WA 64/2020

¶177

¶178

¶179

EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 1
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 2
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 3
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 4
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 5
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 6
EXHIBIT P16	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 7
EXHIBIT P17	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 8
EXHIBIT P18	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 9
EXHIBIT P19	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 10
EXHIBIT P20	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 11
EXHIBIT P21	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 12
EXHIBIT P22	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 13
EXHIBIT P23	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 14
EXHIBIT P24	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 15
EXHIBIT P25	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED

¶180

¶181

¶182

06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 16

¶183

EXHIBIT P26	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 17
EXHIBIT P27	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 18
EXHIBIT P28	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 19
EXHIBIT P29	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 20
EXHIBIT P30	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 21
EXHIBIT P31	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 22
EXHIBIT P32	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 23
EXHIBIT P33	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 24
EXHIBIT P34	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 25
EXHIBIT P35	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 26
EXHIBIT P36	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 27
EXHIBIT P37	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 28
EXHIBIT P38	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 29
EXHIBIT P39	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 30
EXHIBIT P40	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 31

¶184

¶185

EXHIBIT	P41 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 32
EXHIBIT	P42 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 33
EXHIBIT	P43 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 34
EXHIBIT	P44 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 35
EXHIBIT	P45 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 36
EXHIBIT	P46 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 37
EXHIBIT	P47 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 38
EXHIBIT	P48 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 39
EXHIBIT	P49 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 40
EXHIBIT	P50 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-11-2020 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 41
EXHIBIT	P51 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
RESPONDE EXHIBIT	NT EXHIBITS R1 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY LIC OF INDIA BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2268 OF 2011

Yoganandam v. Life Insurance Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yoganandam v. Life Insurance Corporation of India

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

Sanjeev M. Vs Union of India

Athira R Vs Regional Cancer Centre

Satish Babu V.T. Vs the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.

Riga Aravindan Vs State of Kerala

P Rajalakshmi Vs State of Kerala

Shanavas v. a. Vs Biju Prabhakar, IAS