L. I. C. of India & Ors. Vs. G. Sudhakar & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2104 of 2000
Petitioner: L. I. C. of India & Ors.
Respondent: G. Sudhakar & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2104 of 2000
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & RUMA PAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 22, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Life Insurance Corporation services – Regularization of the services of temporary employees – Directions of A.P. High Court to LIC to frame a scheme for the absorption of temporary employees – Validity. Held, since such regularization is to be made in terms of the provisions contained in the order passed on 23.10.1992 by a three judge bench of Supreme Court in E. Prabhavathy and Others v. LIC, A.P., High Court was not justified in giving directions to LIC for framing a scheme. Regularization of the respondents therefore, is to be made in terms of the Supreme Courts’ order dated 23.10.1992.
Held:
In the earlier decision of this Court dated 23.10.1992 this Court has not limited the applicability of the scheme only to the employees of the Tamil Nadu division. In the aforesaid circumstances, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was not justified in issuing the impugned direction to the corporation to evolve a new set of scheme to govern the case of the employees who had filed writ petitions in the High Court. We, therefore, set aside the impugned direction of the division bench of the High Court and substitute the same with the direction that the case of regularisation of these respondents shall be considered in accordance with the scheme which formed a part of the order of this Court dated 23.10.1992, if not already considered. (Para 7)
Cases Reffered:
1. E. Prabhavathy & Ors. v. The Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. (Civil Appeals arising out of SLPs Nos. 1039-10413/1992) (Para 3)
2. The Management of the LIC of India v. Their Workmen (C.A. Nos. 1790/89) (Para 5)
2. The Management of the LIC of India v. Their Workmen (C.A. Nos. 1790/89) (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal is by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short “the Corporation”) against the division bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The respondents filed a writ petition praying for a mandamus to the corporation for their absorption on permanent basis which stood dismissed.
2. On an appeal being carried, the division bench of the High Court disposed of the appeal with a direction to the corporation to frame a scheme for regularisation of the employees and regularise their services in accordance with such scheme. It is this direction of the High Court which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
3. Mr. Salve, the learned solicitor general appearing for the corporation stated that, in fact, in the case of E. Prabhavathy & Ors. v. The Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. (Civil Appeals arising out of SLPs Nos. 1039-10413/1992), this Court was in seisin of a similar problem and during the hearing of that appeal, a tentative scheme was produced before this Court and the Court framed the terms of those schemes as a part of the order and disposed of the appeal in terms of the said scheme on 23rd October, 1992. The four clauses of the said scheme which formed a part of the order are quoted hereinbelow in extenso :-
“Scheme :
(a) All those temporary employees who have worked for 85 days in any two consecutive calendar years with the Life Insurance Corporation between 20th May, 1985 uptill date and who conformed to the required eligibility criteria for regular recruitment on the dates of their initial temporary appointment will be permitted to compete for the next regular recruitment to be made by the Life Insurance Corporation after the regular recruitment for these posts currently scheduled for November, 1992;
(b) These candidates will be considered on their merits with all other candidates who may apply for such appointments, including those from the open market.
(c) These candidates will be given an age relaxation for applying for regular recruitment provided that they were eligible on the date of their first temporary appointment for securing regular appointment with the Life Insurance Corporation……….
(d) If these candidates are otherwise eligible, they can apply for regular recruitment in the normal course.”
4. According to the learned solicitor general, since a scheme is in existence, it is no longer necessary to evolve a fresh scheme for these employees who were the parties before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. He also stated that in the meantime, a set of instructions have been framed called the “Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993” which takes care of such employees who were continuing for a fairly long period without being regularised.
5. Mr. Krishnamurthy, the learned senior counsel, on the other hand, contended that the aforesaid instructions will not govern the case of the employees who were there before the High Court, as they were the appointees between 1986 and 1993. He further contended that a similar matter, in the case of The Management of the LIC of India v. Their Workmen (C.A. Nos. 1790/89) a bench of this Court has disposed of with a direction to consider the case of regularisation considering the suitability at a lesser standard by its judgment dated 7th February, 1996 and, therefore, there is no infirmity with the impugned direction of the High Court.
6. Having examined the judgment dated 7th February, 1996 of this Court in C.A. Nos. 1790/89, we find that the earlier 3 judge bench decision dated 23rd October, 1992 has not been noticed. The aforesaid three-judge bench decision unequivocally makes the provisions of the scheme as a part of the order. Necessarily, therefore, the case of regularisation of the employees of the corporation could be dealt with in accordance with the said scheme and it would not be necessary to evolve a fresh scheme for a group of employees. Mr. Krishnamurthy further contended that the E. Prabhavathy’s case (supra) relates to the employees of Tamil Nadu division. But, it is not disputed that they are the employees of the corporation. If the corporation has evolved a scheme assuming for the Tamil Nadu division, then the same could be equally applicable to the employees of all divisions in the country. That being the position, the scheme which has been approved and formed a part of the order of this Court dated 23.10.1992, should govern the case of these respondents who were writ petitioners before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
7. Needless to mention, in the earlier decision of this Court dated 23.10.1992, this Court has not limited the applicability of the scheme only to the employees of the Tamil Nadu division. In the aforesaid circumstances, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was not justified in issuing the impugned direction to the corporation to evolve a new set of scheme to govern the case of the employees who had filed writ petitions in the High Court. We, therefore, set aside the impugned direction of the division bench of the High Court and substitute the same with the direction that the case of regularisation of these respondents shall be considered in accordance with the scheme which formed a part of the order of this Court dated 23.10.1992, if not already considered. This appeal accordingly stands disposed of.
1. This appeal is by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short “the Corporation”) against the division bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The respondents filed a writ petition praying for a mandamus to the corporation for their absorption on permanent basis which stood dismissed.
2. On an appeal being carried, the division bench of the High Court disposed of the appeal with a direction to the corporation to frame a scheme for regularisation of the employees and regularise their services in accordance with such scheme. It is this direction of the High Court which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
3. Mr. Salve, the learned solicitor general appearing for the corporation stated that, in fact, in the case of E. Prabhavathy & Ors. v. The Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. (Civil Appeals arising out of SLPs Nos. 1039-10413/1992), this Court was in seisin of a similar problem and during the hearing of that appeal, a tentative scheme was produced before this Court and the Court framed the terms of those schemes as a part of the order and disposed of the appeal in terms of the said scheme on 23rd October, 1992. The four clauses of the said scheme which formed a part of the order are quoted hereinbelow in extenso :-
“Scheme :
(a) All those temporary employees who have worked for 85 days in any two consecutive calendar years with the Life Insurance Corporation between 20th May, 1985 uptill date and who conformed to the required eligibility criteria for regular recruitment on the dates of their initial temporary appointment will be permitted to compete for the next regular recruitment to be made by the Life Insurance Corporation after the regular recruitment for these posts currently scheduled for November, 1992;
(b) These candidates will be considered on their merits with all other candidates who may apply for such appointments, including those from the open market.
(c) These candidates will be given an age relaxation for applying for regular recruitment provided that they were eligible on the date of their first temporary appointment for securing regular appointment with the Life Insurance Corporation……….
(d) If these candidates are otherwise eligible, they can apply for regular recruitment in the normal course.”
4. According to the learned solicitor general, since a scheme is in existence, it is no longer necessary to evolve a fresh scheme for these employees who were the parties before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. He also stated that in the meantime, a set of instructions have been framed called the “Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993” which takes care of such employees who were continuing for a fairly long period without being regularised.
5. Mr. Krishnamurthy, the learned senior counsel, on the other hand, contended that the aforesaid instructions will not govern the case of the employees who were there before the High Court, as they were the appointees between 1986 and 1993. He further contended that a similar matter, in the case of The Management of the LIC of India v. Their Workmen (C.A. Nos. 1790/89) a bench of this Court has disposed of with a direction to consider the case of regularisation considering the suitability at a lesser standard by its judgment dated 7th February, 1996 and, therefore, there is no infirmity with the impugned direction of the High Court.
6. Having examined the judgment dated 7th February, 1996 of this Court in C.A. Nos. 1790/89, we find that the earlier 3 judge bench decision dated 23rd October, 1992 has not been noticed. The aforesaid three-judge bench decision unequivocally makes the provisions of the scheme as a part of the order. Necessarily, therefore, the case of regularisation of the employees of the corporation could be dealt with in accordance with the said scheme and it would not be necessary to evolve a fresh scheme for a group of employees. Mr. Krishnamurthy further contended that the E. Prabhavathy’s case (supra) relates to the employees of Tamil Nadu division. But, it is not disputed that they are the employees of the corporation. If the corporation has evolved a scheme assuming for the Tamil Nadu division, then the same could be equally applicable to the employees of all divisions in the country. That being the position, the scheme which has been approved and formed a part of the order of this Court dated 23.10.1992, should govern the case of these respondents who were writ petitioners before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
7. Needless to mention, in the earlier decision of this Court dated 23.10.1992, this Court has not limited the applicability of the scheme only to the employees of the Tamil Nadu division. In the aforesaid circumstances, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was not justified in issuing the impugned direction to the corporation to evolve a new set of scheme to govern the case of the employees who had filed writ petitions in the High Court. We, therefore, set aside the impugned direction of the division bench of the High Court and substitute the same with the direction that the case of regularisation of these respondents shall be considered in accordance with the scheme which formed a part of the order of this Court dated 23.10.1992, if not already considered. This appeal accordingly stands disposed of.
