1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA W.P. Nos. 63936/2012 & 64365/2012 (S-REG) BETWEEN: 1. RAMA S/O. NARAYAN MOGER AGE: 43 YEARS, R/O. HEBLE POST & VILLAGE, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. 2. DINESH S/O. VISHNU BHAT, AGE: 44 YEARS, R/O. KASARKOD, TQ: HONNAVAR DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. J S SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA BY ITS MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL ZONE, JEEVAN BHAGYA, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD- 560 063. 2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
2 DIVISION OFFICE, DHARWAD. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA BRANCH OFFICE, HONNAVAR, TQ: HONNAVAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. 4. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL), LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, POST BOX NO.11511, NIRMAN POINT P.O., MUMBAI 400 021. (R4 IS IMPLEADED V.C.O. DT.04.08.2015)... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NARAYAN V YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:07/04/2012, PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPODNENT, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURES-A AND B AND ALSO THE ORDERS DATED:16/05/2012 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT, THE COPIES OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURES-C AND D, ETC.. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3 O R D E R These petitions are filed before this court seeking the relief of a writ of certiorari by quashing the order dated 07.04.2012 passed by the 1 st respondent and also the orders dated 16.05.2012 passed by the 2 nd respondent, and for consequential direction to the respondents to continue the services of the petitioners in the post of Assistant and to pay all the consequential benefits in favour of the petitioners by regularizing their services by considering the representations dated 10.05.2012 of the petitioners and any such other reliefs which the court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. There is no dispute with regard to the factual matrix of the case that the petitioners have been sponsored by the employment exchange, Karwar, for the temporary post of Assistant in the Respondent-(Life Insurance Corporation of India ( for short, LIC ) and
4 they discharged their duties in the said post from the date of their respective appointment. The 1 st petitioner has served in the said post from 02.05.1994 to 27.08.1994 for a period of 115 days and the 2 nd petitioner has served from 12.04.1994 to 08.08.1994 for a period of 118 days praying that, without assigning any reasons, their services have been terminated by the respondent-lic. Therefore, the petitioners have in fact approached the Respondent-LIC Authorities for regularization of their services. Perhaps, their application not considered by the Respondent-LIC, therefore, they approached this court by way of W.P. No.62255-62256/2009 (S-REG). Vide order dated 06.03.2012, this court considering the grounds urged in the said writ petitions, has directed the Respondent LIC Authorities represented by its Divisional Manager and Branch Manager, to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners dated 07.02.2009 as per
5 Annexures-M & N as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. By virtue of the said direction of this court, the LIC Authorities stating that they have considered the representation of the petitioners, issued an order dated 07.04.2012, in which it has specifically stated that, as per Rule-VII of the LIC of India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993, no temporary employee will be considered for absorption. But he may compete along with the other eligible candidates provided he satisfies all eligibility criteria. However, he will be allowed relaxation in upper age limit to compete in the immediately following regular recruitment under the recruitment instructions. Therefore, the petitioners were given an opportunity to compete in the test held on 31.08.2008, in which they failed to qualify. Thereafter also mentioning that for the next three years whenever an advertisement is made by
6 the respondent-lic for filling up vacancies, the petitioners are permitted to submit their applications, which, if submitted, shall be considered along with all other candidates but giving age relaxation to the petitioners and also giving due weightage to the past services rendered by the petitioners. By making such observations, their representations were disposed of by the respondent-lic. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have again appears to have made a representation on 10.05.2012, wherein, they have specifically stated that the respondent LIC Authorities have not considered the judgment of the Delhi High Court and also the reasons assigned by the LIC while disposing of their representation dated 07.02.2009 are not proper and correct. It is specifically contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that, the High Court of Delhi in LPA No.678/2004 with LPA Nos. 690/2004,
7 710/2007, 722/2004. 1023/2004 and 1165/2004, considered those candidates who have worked for 85 days in any two consecutive calendar years with the corporation between 20 th May 1985 until the date and who confirm the eligibility criteria for regular recruitment on the dates of their initial appointment may also apply for the said post and if they possess requisite qualification, their appointment shall be considered. Therefore, upon the reliance of the decision of the Delhi High Court made by the petitioners in the said application filed on 10.05.2012, their application has not been disposed of by the Respondent LIC Authorities by giving cogent and convincing reasons. 4. Be the facts as it may. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also contends that subsequent to the judgment of the Delhi High Court, the Hon ble Apex Court also had an occasion to deal with the same matter in Civil Appeal No.6950/2009 connected with
8 other appeals vide judgment dated 18.03.2015. The Supreme Court has considered the applications of the workers working in the LIC of India and framed certain guidelines and also made certain observations as to how the applications of the employees working in the LIC as temporary employees to be considered. Therefore, in view of these two decisions of the Delhi High Court as well as the Hon ble Supreme Court, the Respondent-LIC Authorities have to consider the applications of the petitioners afresh as per the guidelines of the Hon ble Supreme Court. In spite of the petitioners repeated requests and demands, the respondent-lic Authorities have not been disposing of the representation dated 10.05.2012, but they are sticking on to their original order passed on 07.04.2012. 5. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is the specific case of the petitioners that after 07.04.2012 they made further representation on the
9 ground that the corporation has not properly considered the judgment of the Delhi High Court and therefore, inevitably they made further representation for consideration, on 10.05.2012. Hence, it is the duty of the respondent-lic Authorities to consider the said application and pass appropriate orders on their representation, in view of the changed circumstances. 6. Agreeing with the said submission made by the learned Counsel, I am of the opinion that the Respondents LIC Authorities should not stick on to their earlier order itself, but they have to pass appropriate orders, if there is any grievance by the petitioners on the ground that the previous order is bad in law, because they have not considered the guidelines issued by the Delhi High Court and also the Apex Court now relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
10 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-lic, at this juncture drawn my attention to Annexure-T produced by the petitioner along with the judgment of the Apex Court (Annexure S) noted above, wherein, in pursuance of the guidelines of the Apex Court as well as Central Government Industrial Tribunal ( CGIT for short), they have issued a public notice on 23.07.2015 in Kannada Newspaper calling upon the aggrieved employees to make necessary applications as per the said notice issued by the LIC dated 21.07.2015. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are also reserve their right to file necessary application vide notification dated 21.07.2015 issued by the LIC. Hence, without prejudice their rights to file such an application, their representation may also be directed to be considered in
11 accordance with law in pursuance of the guidelines of the Hon ble Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court. 9. I do not find strong reasons to deny the relief sought by the petitioners for the simple reason that much prior to the issuance of notice as per Annexure-T dated 21.7.2015, the applications of the petitioners are pending before the Respondent LIC. By this time they would have passed an appropriate order, but they have not passed any order on their representations. When any representation is made before the competent authority, whether they accept or deny the relief claimed in the representation, they must consider the said application in accordance with the directions or guidelines laid down by the Higher Courts. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, if on this issue any such direction is issued, it will not in any manner prejudice the rights of the petitioners to submit their applications to the public notice issued on 21.7.2015 nor it will have
12 any impact or adverse effect on the rights of the Respondent-LIC authorities. Therefore, by virtue of the said observations, the following order is passed. ORDER The Respondent LIC Authorities are hereby directed to consider the representations dated 10.05.2012 made by the petitioners bearing in mind the guidelines issued by the Delhi High Court as well the Hon ble Supreme Court, as noted in the body of this order and pass appropriate orders on the said representations within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without fail. The petitioners are also at liberty to file their applications by virtue of the public notice dated 21.07.2015 (Annexure-T). Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of. KGR* Sd/- JUDGE