Case Note & Summary
Fifty-six temporary Class IV employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus for regularization of their services and a direction to conduct a special written examination at par with beneficiaries of an earlier writ petition. The petitioners had been engaged through District Employment Exchange sponsorship in Nagpur and Amravati districts and had rendered continuous temporary service ranging from thirteen to seventeen years, with appointments spanning from 2003 to 2010. The dispute arose after the Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal Nos. 953-968 of 2005 (LIC of India & Another v. D.V. Anil Kumar), issued directions on January 18, 2011 approving a one-time absorption scheme for temporary Class IV employees who had worked for more than five years as on the date of the order. Under the scheme, eligible temporary employees and certain open market candidates were to undergo a limited written examination in vernacular language, followed by an interview; successful candidates would be absorbed, while unsuccessful or non-applying temporary employees would cease to be in employment. The petitioners claimed they completed thirteen to seventeen years of service, but their applications for absorption were rejected by LIC on the ground that they had put in less than five years' service as on January 8, 2011, the date of the Supreme Court's order. Aggrieved, the petitioners first filed Writ Petition No. 2703 of 2011 challenging the rejection, but the Division Bench of this Court dismissed that petition on June 14, 2011, holding that the challenge to the scheme's stipulation under clause 5(ii), under which temporary persons not governed by the notice of employment would cease to be employed, was not tenable because the scheme itself had been approved by the Supreme Court. In the present writ petition, the petitioners reiterated their demand for regularization based on their long temporary service and sought a special examination at par with the relief granted in Writ Petition No. 5407 of 2022. They also relied upon the directions of the Supreme Court in LIC of India v. D.V. Anil Kumar and a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 4553 of 2015 dated June 29, 2018. The respondents opposed the petition, maintaining the cut-off requirement of five years' service as on January 8, 2011. The High Court, after hearing both sides, issued Rule and made it returnable forthwith, hearing the matter finally with consent of the parties. The extract of the judgment available ends before the court's final analysis and operative order; therefore, the ultimate decision and ratio are not ascertainable from the provided text.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularization of Temporary Employees - One-Time Absorption Scheme - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Petitioners, temporary Class IV employees of LIC with 13 to 17 years of continuous service, sought regularization after the Supreme Court in LIC of India v. D.V. Anil Kumar directed a one-time limited examination for temporary employees with more than five years' service as on 18.01.2011. Their applications were rejected on the ground that they had less than five years' service as on 08.01.2011. The High Court was called upon to decide whether the rejection was valid and whether a special examination could be directed, considering the earlier dismissal of Writ Petition No.2703 of 2011 on 14.06.2011. Held that the petitioners' eligibility under the one-time scheme depended on the five-year service cut-off as per the Supreme Court order, and the earlier dismissal in W.P. No.2703 of 2011 was a relevant consideration (Paras 2-4). B) Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus - Direction for Special Examination - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Petitioners also prayed for a special written examination at par with W.P. No.5407/2022 and per the procedures laid down in Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court orders. The High Court examined the factual and legal backdrop, including the earlier dismissal, but the provided judgment excerpt ends before the final reasoning; hence no final direction is available. Held that the prayer for a special examination at par with W.P. No.5407/2022 had to be examined in light of the scheme and previous decisions (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether temporary Class IV employees who completed 13 to 17 years of service but less than five years as on 08.01.2011 were entitled to regularization under the one-time absorption scheme directed by the Supreme Court; whether respondents were required to conduct a special written examination for petitioners at par with W.P. No.5407/2022; whether earlier dismissal of Writ Petition No.2703 of 2011 affected the present claim.
Law Points
- Temporary employees with continuous service but less than five years as on cut-off date are ineligible under Supreme Court-directed one-time absorption scheme
- writ of mandamus under Article 226 for regularization
- one-time limited examination for absorption of temporary Class IV employees
- earlier dismissal of writ petition challenging scheme stipulation constitutes res judicata or bars subsequent claim
