Disposed

G.Suguna, Secunderabad and 8 Others v. Chairman, Lic, Central Office, Mumbai and 2 Others

Telangana HC21 Oct 2024WP/23985/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti disposed of Writ Petition No. 23985 of 2017 by directing Respondents to consider petitioners' absorption claims in accordance with the Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6950 of 2009 batch, rejecting relief of absorption in favor of the disclosed compensation settlement

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; respondents directed to consider petitioner cases per SC judgment without explicit absorption order.

G.Suguna, Secunderabad and 8 Others Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁸⁴ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Originat Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2398s oF 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

G.Suguna, D/o. G.Gopal Naidu, Aged 50 years, Rl/o. Sri Laxmi Nivasam Girls Hostel, Ashoknagar, Secunderabad.

¶9

Ch. Ravi, S/o Laxmaiah Age 49 years Ryo 20-44811, Hanuman nagar, Devarkonda, Dist Nalgonda

¶10

q.P. Heera Rani, D/o- S.P. Bqlram, Age 50 years F/o 4'7OlSt1B, yogeswar Colony, IMamidipally, Armoor, Dist Nizamabad.

¶11

K.Aruna, D/o. Venkat Reddy, Aged 50 years, FUo. H.No. 1-9-109, Housring Board Colony, Jammiguda, Suryapet Town, Suryapet District.

¶12

Sri Sailaja,^ D/o. A.V.- Rao, Aged 52 years, Rt/o. Flat No. 302, Alekya Apartment, Snehapuri Colony, Habsiguda, Hyderabad.

¶13

K. Srinivasa Rao, S/o Satyanarayana Age 5'l years No 12-BBl1tNl, Srinivasanagar, Kodad-508206 Suryapet Dist-

¶14

T.Sreedevi, Dio. T.Paramesh, Aged 49 years, Rio.^{.,l2-1-331/39,} G-|, Dattatreya Enclave, Dattatreya colony, Asifnagar, Hyderabad - S00 028

¶15

B. Y.Venugopala Rao, S/o. Purushotham, Aged 49 years, C/o. Swathi Auto Xerox, Ananthagiri Road, Kodad-508206, Suryapet District.

¶16

South Central Zone lnsurance Employees Federation, (Affiliated to All lndia lnqyra19e^{Employees Association) Rep. by its General Secretary, C/o. LIC of} lndia, Divisional Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶17

...PETITIONERS

¶18

AND

¶19

L. lfe lnsurance Corporation of lndia, Central O{fice, Jeevan Bheema Marg, Yoga Khshema, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 500 021, Rep. by its Chairman

¶20

2 Life lnsurance Corporation of lndia, South Central Zonal Office, Jeevan --_ P_h"Sy",^{Opp. Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500063 Rep. by its Zonal} "i:rrrr5t€t{rr Manager.

¶21

Life lnsurance Corporation of lndia, Divisional Office, Secunderabad, Near lndira Pak, Beside NTR Stadium Secunderabad, Rep. by its Senor Divisional Manager.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ to (i) declare the Circular No. ZOIMPPRyLGL12017l165, dated 16-52017 communicated by the Executive Director (Personnel) to the Zonal Offices restricting the consideration for absorption only to those who are petitioners before the Central Government lndustrial Tribunal or the names furnished by the Associations before the Central Government lndustrial Tribunal as illegal and arbitrary (ii) declare that the petitioners herein are concerned workmen in the award in l.D. No. 27 of 1991 , dated 18-6-2001 on the file of the Central Government lndustrial Tribunal, New Delhi and entitled for absorption in terms of the said Award (iii) direct the respondents to absorb the petitioners on consideration of 85 days/70 days as the case may be with all consequential monetary benefits in terms of the orders of the Honble Supreme Court dated 18-3-2015, 9-8-2016 and 22-22017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009 and batch.

¶24

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 33384 OF 2017

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order granted extension of time for a further for a period of B weeks interim orders dated 20-07-2017 in WP.MP.No. 29678 of 2017 in WP.NO. 23985 of 2O17.

¶26

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed- in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispose of the writ petition as it is covered by the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court At.ZZ.O4 .ZOZZ.*

¶28

l.A. NO: 2OF 2O17|WPMP. NO: 29678OF 2017

¶29

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

¶30

direct the respondents to absorb the^petitioners herein in terms of the applications submitted by the^{petitioners pursuant} to Notice daled 21-7-2015^{along with others} without reference to Circular No. ZOIMPPRJLGL|2O17l165, dated^'16-5-2017.

¶31

l.A. NO: 1OF 20'17 {WVMP. NO: 3s19 OF 20¹⁷¹

¶32

Between:

¶33

Life lnsurance Corporation of lndia, Central Office, Jeevan^BheemaMarg, 'Yoga Khshema, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 500 021, Rep. by its Chairman

¶34

Life lnsurance Corporation of lndia, South Central^{Zonal Office, Jeevan} Bhagya, Opp. Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad^- 500 063^{Rep. by its Zonal} Manager.

¶35

Life lnsurance Corporation of lndia, Divisional^{Office, Secunderabad, Near} lndira Pak, Beside NTR Stadium Secunderabad,^{Rep.by its Senor Divisional} Manager.

¶36

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶37

AND

¶38

1 G.Suguna, D/o. G.Gopal Naidu,^{Aged50 years,Rl/o. Sri Laxmi NivasamGirls} Hostel, Ashoknagar, Secunderabad.

¶39

2 Ch. Ravi, S/o Laxmaiah Age 49^{years RJo 20-44811,Hanumannagar,} Devarkonda, Dist Nalgonda

¶40

3 S.P. Heera Rani, D/o S.P. Balram, Age^{50 yearsR/o4-7015118,Yogeswar} Colony, Mamidipally, Armoor, Dist^Nizamabad.

¶41

4 K.Aruna, D/o. Venkat Reddy, Aged 50^{years, Rl/o.H.No.1-9-109,Housring} Board Colony, Jammiguda, Suryapet^{Town, Suryapet District.}

¶42

5 Sri Sailaja, D/o. A.V. Rao, Aged 52^{years, Ri/o. Flat No. 302'Alekya} Apartment, Snehapuri Colony, Habsiguda,^Hyderabad.

¶43

6 K. Srinivasa Rao, S/o Satyanarayana Age 51^{years R/o 12-BBl1lNl,} Srinivasanagar, Kodad-508206 Suryapet^Dist T.Sreedevi, D/o. T.Paramesh, Aged 49^{years,Rio' 12-1-331/39,G-|,} Dattatreya Enclave, Dattatreya colony, Asifnagar,^{Hyderabad - 500 028}

¶44

8 Y.Venugopala Rao, S/o. Purushotham,^{Aged 49 years,C/o. Swathi Auto} Xerox, Ananthagiri Road, Kodad-508206,^{SuryapetDistrict.}

¶45

I South Central Zone Insurance^{Employees Federation,(Affiliated to All lndia} lnsurance Employees Association)^{Rep. by its General Secretary, C/o. LIC of} lndia, Divisional Office, Saifabad,^Hyderabad.

¶46

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶47

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the HighCourt may be pleased vacate} the interim order^{passedin WPMPNo. 29678 ot 2017in W.P. No. 23985 of 2017} Dt.20-07-2017.

¶48

I I I 'l t; l

¶49

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt K.UDAyA SRI

¶50

Counsel for the Respondents: SRt BATHULA RAJ KIRAN, (SC FOR LIC ) The Court made the following: ORDER

¶51

THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶52

WRIT PETITION No.23985 OF 2017

¶53

ORDER:

¶54

This writ petition is filed Court seeking the following reliel

¶55

"to issue an order, direction or Wit more particularly one in tLLe noture of Wit of Mandamus or anlJ other appropriote wit to (t) declare the Ciranlar No.ZO/MPPI?/LGL/2017/165, dated 16.05.2017 communicated by the Exeantiue Director (Personnel) to tl,e Zonal Offices restricting tte consideration for absorption only to t.hose uho are pet itioners before LlTe Central GouenTmenl IndustiaL Tibunal or the names funrtshed" by the Associalions before the Central Gouentment htdustrial Tnbunal as iLlegal and arbitrary; (ii) declare that ttLe petitioners here t are concented workmen in the award in I.D.No.27 of 1991, dated 18.06.2001 on tLe file of tLrc Central Gouemment Industial^'fribunal, Neu.t Delhi and entitled for absorption in terms of the said Au.tard; (iii) direct tLrc respondents to absorb the petitioners on consideration of 85 days/ 7O dags as th.e case may be Luith all consequential monetary bene-fits in terms of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Caurl dated 18.O3.2015, 09.08.2016 and 22.O2.2017 in C.A.No.695O of 2009 ancl batch and pcss suclr other order or orders as liri.s Honble Coufl may deem fit and proper in the inlerest ol'pstice.".

¶56

Heard Mr. Raghuvecr, Iearncd counsel rcpresenting Mrs. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Bathula l?aj Kiran, learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶57

¶58

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are eligibte to be absorbed and a direction is being sought to respondents to absorb the petitioners with all monetary benellts in terms of the judgment, dated 27.O4.2O22, irr Miscellaneous Application No. 115O of 2019 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.1921 of 2Ol7 in Civil Appeal No.6950 of 2OO9 and batch.

¶59

Learned Senior Counsel for respondents submits that the Honble Apex Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 1 150 of 2019 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1921 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No.695O ot 2OO9 and batch, held as follows:

¶60

"The dispute is now of an antiquity tracing back to nearly four decades. Finality has to be wrung down on the disputes to avoid uncertainty and more litigation. Nearly thirty-one-yezrs have elapsed since 199 l. We have come to the conclusion that the claims of those workers who are duly found upon verification to meet the threshold conditions of eligibility should be resolved by the award of monetary compensation in lieu of absorption, and in full and frnal settlement of a-ll c-laims and demands. Thus, this Court directs the following:

¶61

(i) A fresh verilication of the claims of workers who claim to have been employed for at least 70 days in Class IV posts over a period of three years of 85 days in Class III posts over a period of two years shall be carried out;

¶62

(ii) The verification shall be confined to persons who were working between 20 Ma1, 1985 and 4 March 1991;

¶63

I (iii) All persons who are found to be eligible on the above norm shall be entitled to compensation computed at the rate of Rs.5O,0O0 for every year of service or part thereof. The payment of compensation at the above

¶64

rate shall be in lieu of reinstatement, and in full arrd firna.l settlement of ail claims and demands of the workers in lieu of regularisation or absorption and notwithstanding thc dircctions issucd by this Court in TN Terminated Employee Association (supra).

¶65

(iv) In carrying out the process of verification, the Committee appointed by this Court shall not be confined to the certified list before the CGIT and shall consider the claims of a.ll workers who werc engaged between 20 May 1985 and 4 March 1991;

¶66

(v) For the purposc of verification, l,lC shall make available all the records at the Divisional level to the Comrhittee appointed by this Court;

¶67

(vi) It will bc open to thc workers concerned or, as the case may bc, the Unions and Associations representing Lhcm, to makc available such documentary material in their possession for the purpose of verihcation.

¶68

(vii)The process of verification shall be carried out independentiy without regard to the Dogra Report, which is held to be flawed;

¶69

(viii) The payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement shall be effected by LIC within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the report of verification by the committee; and

¶70

(ix) The task of verihcation shall be carried out by a Committee consisting of:

¶71

(a) Mr. Justice P K S Baghel, former Judge of the Ailahabad High Court; and

¶72

(b) Shri Rajiv Sharma, formcr Distrir:t .Judge and member of thc UPHJS.

¶73

¶74

LIC shall provide all logistical assistance to the Committee and bear all exp€nses, including secretarial expenses, travel and incidental expenses, as well as the fees payable to the members of the Committee. Justice P K S Baghel shall fix the terms o[ remuneration payable to the members of the Committee'

¶75

¶76

¶77

Learned counsel for petitioners and respondents submitted that petitioners'case(s) be considered in terms of judgment of the Hon'Lrle Apex Court.

¶78

In vicw of the submissions made by learned counsel(s), this

¶79

' Court is of the opinion that petitioner,s case(s) be considered by the respondent authorities in terms of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Miscellaneous Application No. I 150 of 2Ol9 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.l92 | of 2Ol7 in Civil Appeal No.695O of 2OO9 and batch.

¶80

7 Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶81

Miscellaneous applications pending. if any, shall stand

¶82

closed.

¶83

SD/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTAN REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

s ION OFFICER

To,

'1. The Chairman, Life lnsurance Corporation of lndia, Central Office, Jeevan Bheema Marg, Yoga Khshema, Nariman Point, Mumbai^- 500 021^.

¶88

The Zonal Manager, Life lnsurance Corporation of lndia, South Central Zonal Office, Jeevan Bhagya, Opp. Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500 063.

¶89

The Senior Divisional Manager, Life lnsurance Corporation of lndia, Divisional Office, Secunderabad, Near lndira Pak, Beside NTR Stadium Secunderabad.

¶90

One CC to SMT.K UDAYA SRl, Advocate. [OPUC]

¶91

One CC to SRI BATHULA RAJ KIRAN (SC FOR LIC). [OPUC]

¶92

Two CD Copies.

BSK

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 t101202+. :

,J
o
L'
10 ur m I
I
,r +
F{rcHLt) t

¶98

ORDER

¶99

I,l/P.No.23985 of 2017

¶100

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS

¶101

r A-
t
<br>g

G.Suguna, Secunderabad and 8 Others v. Chairman, Lic, Central Office, Mumbai and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Suguna, Secunderabad and 8 Others v. Chairman, Lic, Central Office, Mumbai and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Srinivas and 2 Others, Vs Secy., Ministry of Finance,New Delhi, and 2 Others

T.Venkatesh Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. Srivatsa Krishna, IAS Vs Sri. G. Ashik Kumar, President , IAS

D. Damodar Rao, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Mohd.Ishaq Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Malothu Ramulu, Khammam Dist and 4 Others Vs Chairman and Md, Ts Genco, Hyderabad and 4 Others