A. Duraimohan vs The Senior Divisional Manager

WP.No.18140 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.02.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA W.P No.18140 of 2018

A. Duraimohan, S/o. late D. Arumugavelu, No. 6/38, 2nd Main Road, 7th Cross Street, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Kodungaiyur, Chennai -600 118. ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Divisional office, Vellore, Vellore District.

2. The Regional Manager (P&IR), HC OF INDIA, No. 153, Anna Salai, Chennai-600002, Tamilnadu. ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS, to call for the record of the pertains to the offer of appointment order issued to the petitioner by the 1st respondent bearing Ref.No.P&IR/CGIT No.345 dated 16.10.2017 and subsequent cancellation of appointment order of the petitioner issued by the 2nd respondent bearing Ref. No. SZ/P&IR/DESK-3 dated 10.03.2018 and quash the

1/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:51 pm ) WP.No.18140 of 2018

same as arbitrary, illegal and consequently directed the respondents herein to absorb the petitioner in his service from the date of his termination i.e., on 27.07.1992 with continuity of service, 50% back wages and all other attendance benefit as awarded by the CGIT in ID No 27 \ 91 which is confirmed by the Honourable Supreme court in civil appeal No 6950 of 2009, dated 18.03.2015 and subsequent order in review application No. 3846 of 2015, dated 09.08.2016.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan

For Respondents : Mr.C.K.Chandrasekkar

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed under a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus

to call for the record of the pertains to the offer of appointment order issued to

the petitioner by the 1st respondent bearing Ref No.P&IR/CGIT No.345 dated

16.10.2017 and subsequent cancellation of appointment order of the petitioner

issued by the 2nd respondent bearing Ref. No. SZ/P&IR/DESK-3 dated

10.03.2018 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and consequently directed the

respondents herein to absorb the petitioner in his service from the date of his

termination i.e., on 27.07.1992 with continuity of service, 50% back wages and

all other attendance benefit as awarded by the CGIT in I.D.No. 27 \ 91 which is

confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in civil appeal No 6950 of 2009,

2/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:51 pm ) WP.No.18140 of 2018

dated 18.03.2015, and subsequent order in review application No. 3846 of 2015,

dated 09.08.2016.

2.Heard, Mr..P.R.Thiruneelakandan, learned counsel for the petitioner,

Mr.C.K.Chandrasekkar, learned counsel for respondents and perused the

materials available on record.

3. The petitioner was temporarily working as an Assistant in class III

employees in the respondent establishment [LIC]. As the petitioner was

terminated suddenly, he filed an Industrial Dispute before the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, by raising ID No. 27 of 1991. In the

industrial tribunal award dated 18.06.2001, the Tribunal directed the respondent

to absorb the petitioner and other temporary employees employed in the

respondent's establishment. The respondent preferred a writ petition in W.P. No.

4346 of 2001 before the Delhi High Court, and the same was allowed.

Challenging the same, a civil appeal was preferred before the Honourable

Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6950 of 2009. The Supreme Court has

confirmed the award of the CGIT vide its order dated 18.03.2015. The judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Review Application No.3846 of 2015 has

passed an order on 09.08.2016 and allowed 50% of back wages after the date of

3/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:51 pm ) WP.No.18140 of 2018

termination. A curative petition was filed by the respondent in Curative Petition

No.23 of 2017 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed by

the Supreme Court vide its order dated 22.02.2017.

4.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the

order of appointment, the petitioner was required to report for training. The

petitioner accepted all the conditions stipulated in the offer of an appointment

dated 16.10.2017. But the 2nd respondent had cancelled the same on 10.03.2018.

5. Mr.C.K.Chandrasekkar, learned counsel for respondents submitted that

despite the petitioner being given an order of appointment letter on 16.10.2017,

he did not report to duty and he started to prefer representations addressed to the

Senior Divisional Manager, Chennai, requesting for change of place to report for

training to Chennai instead of Vellore. Reply letters were sent to the petitioner

indicating that change of posting was not possible, and he was advised to report

for training at Vellore. However, the petitioner did not heed the advice of the

office. As a final opportunity, the petitioner was informed vide letter dated

29.01.2018 to report for training on or before 12.02.2018 at Vellore. Despite this,

the petitioner did not report for training and so, his appointment was cancelled

through a letter dated 14.02.2018.

4/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:51 pm ) WP.No.18140 of 2018

DISCUSSION

6. In the appointment order, it is stated that the date of absorption is not

taken into account with effect from the date of the temporary appointment. Had

the petitioner accepted the conditions, he would have immediately joined the

training programme. Even according to the affidavit of the petitioner he has

stated that he did not accept the conditions 1 and 2 of the appointment order, and

hence he did not report for training. The conditions are predominantly about the

non-mentioning of the date of absorption; the petitioner's services as temporary

employment has not been included in his service, but the appointment order is

given as a fresh appointment.

7. A person similar to the petitioner who had obtained orders from CGIT

which got confirmed by the Supreme Court had availed the opportunity and

joined the department. The petitioner has claimed that he is entitled to get

absorption and regularisation from the date of his initial appointment as a

temporary worker and he is entitled to get continuity of service. But there is a

subsequent development by virtue of the order of the Supreme Court made in

Miscellaneous Application No.1150 of 2019 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.

5/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:51 pm ) WP.No.18140 of 2018

1921 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 6950 of 2009.

8. A Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Tamil Nadu Terminated Full-Time Temporary LIC Employees Association

Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India reported in (2015) 9 SCC 62] wherein

it is observed that LIC was restrained by judicial orders for pursuing an open

recruitment process. It is further observed that the absorption of part-time/badili

workers would effectively substitute the recruitment process based on sanctioned

posts, which must be consistent with the principles of reservation and carried out

through a structured recruitment process that ensures equal opportunity for all

applicants.

9. The Supreme Court has thought that it was a serious detriment to the

constitutional parameters and hold that the LIC, as a public employer, has a duty

to follow a fair process inconsonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

of India. In the said order, it is observed that though the LIC was unsuccessful in

the Curative Petition filed in the Tamil Nadu Terminated Employees Association

(cited supra), the LIC is bound by the earlier decision of the three Judge Bench

judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in E.Prabavathy Vs. Life

Insurance Corporation of India in SLP (Civil) No.10393 of 1992 on

6/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:51 pm ) WP.No.18140 of 2018

23.10.1992. As the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in

Tamil Nadu Terminated Employees Association's case (cited supra) on

18.03.2015 is in conflict with the larger bench judgment passed in E. Prabavathy

case (cited supra), the conflict was harmonized by taking recourse to the

jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution

of India in Ranbir Singh Vs. SK Roy, Chairman, Life Insurance Corp.of India

& Anr reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 521 and thereafter it was concluded as

under :

"75. The dispute is now of an antiquity tracing back to nearly four decades. Finality has to be wrung down on the dispute to avoid uncertainty and more litigation. Nearly thirty-one years have elapsed since 1991. 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 final settlement of all claims and demands. Thus, this Court directs the following:

(i) A fresh verification 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 or 85 days in Class III posts over a period of two years shall be carried out;

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

(iii) All persons who are found to be eligible on the above norm

7/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:51 pm ) WP.No.18140 of 2018

shall be entitled to compensation computed at the rate of Rs.

50,000/- for every year of service or part thereof. The payment of compensation at the above rate shall be in lieu of reinstatement, and in full and final settlement of all claims and demands of the workers in lieu of regularisation or absorption and notwithstanding the directions issued by this Court in TN Terminated Employees Association (supra);

(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 all workers who were engaged between 20 May 1985 and 4 March 1991;

(v) For the purpose of verification, LIC shall make available all the records at the Divisional level to the Committee appointed by this Court;

(vi) It will be open to the workers concerned or, as the case may be, the Unions and Associations representing them, to make available such documentary material in their possession for the purpose of verification;

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

(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

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

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

(b) Shri Rajiv Sharma, former District Judge and member of the

8/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:51 pm ) WP.No.18140 of 2018

UPHJS. LIC shall provide all logistical assistance to the Committee and bear all expenses, 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 of remuneration payable to the members of the Committee."

10. So the petitioner and similar others who have received a favorable

order in TN Terminated Employees Association (cited supra) were not allowed to

enjoy the benefit of the order. Instead, all those persons who are found to be

eligible and were working between 20.05.1985 to 04.03.1991 were given with

compensation computed at the rate of Rs.50000/- for every year of their service.

The above payment of compensation was in view of the reinstatement and as a

full and final settlement of all claims and demands of the workers in view of

regularisation or absorption and not withstanding the directions issued by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in TN Terminated Employees Association (cited supra).

The above order is dated 27.04.2022.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that the above order of

the Supreme Court would not have an impact on the petitioner as he has got an

earlier order passed in his favour. However, there is an explicit reference made in

Ranbir Singh Vs. SK Roy, Chairman, Life Insurance Corp.of India & Anr. 9/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:51 pm ) WP.No.18140 of 2018

12. But in Ranbir Singh (cited supra) there is a direct reference was made

about the TN Terminated Employees Association (cited supra), through which the

petitioner got the relief and which was limited to compensation. Infact, the order

of the Supreme Court did not touch or reverse the relief of reinstatement already

enjoyed by some of the appointees who immediately joined that post after getting

the appointment order. The petitioner did not opt to join service as he was raising

certain objections to the terms and conditions in the appointment order, and he

was demanding that his services should be regularized on and from the date of

his temporary appointment. By making such a claim, the petitioner had lost the

opportunity.

13. The petitioner had filed this writ petition to set aside the order dated

16.10.2017 passed by the 1st respondent in Ref.No.P&IR/CGIT No.345 dated

16.10.2017 and the subsequent cancellation of appointment order of the

petitioner issued by the 2nd respondent bearing Ref. No. SZ/P&IR/DESK-3 dated

10.03.2018. In fact, the order of appointment has been cancelled by the

subsequent order dated 10.03.2018. So there is no question of setting it aside

once again. Even the petitioner is not entitled to get the order above restored in

view of the subsequent legal position settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

10/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:51 pm ) WP.No.18140 of 2018

Ranbir Singh (cited supra).

14. Even though the Supreme Court had modified the relief of

reinstatement as compensation, it has not stated anything about the 50% of back

wages awarded in the award of CGIT in Award No.27/91 which got confirmed by

the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Terminated Employees Association (cited

supra). However, the respondent LIC in its appointment order dated

16.10.2017,had stated that the back wages for the period of employment for

temporary employees shall be worked out as on the date of appointment, and it

will be processed within six months from the date of joining.

15. Unfortunately, the petitioner did not accept the above condition and

preferred not to join. Now the order of the Supreme Court made in Ranbir Singh

(cited supra) is limited to the payment of Rs.50,000/- per year as compensation

for previous service rendered by the temporary employees. Even for the sake of

argument, it is presumed that the judgment of the Supreme Court made in Ranbir

Singh (cited supra) the appointment will not bind the petitioner's case. The

petitioner cannot be given with the benefit of reinstatement, as he did not obey

the directions of the employer and report to training, the respondent LIC

11/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:51 pm ) WP.No.18140 of 2018

proceeded to cancel the appointment order. By choosing not to join, the petitioner

had literally abanded the offer of appointment, and hence he is not entitled to the

relief of setting aside the subsequent cancellation order. In whatever angle the

issue is looked at, as on today the petitioner cannot be given with the relief of

reinstatement either directly or indirectly by setting aside the order of cancelling

the order of appointment, but the petitioner can claim compensation as settled

down by the Supreme Court in Ranbir Singh (cited supra).

In view of the observation, the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief as

prayed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

06.02.2025

Index : Yes Internet : Yes/No Speaking/Non- Speaking Neutral: Yes/No jrs

12/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:51 pm ) WP.No.18140 of 2018

To

1. The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Divisional office, Vellore, Vellore District.

2. The Regional Manager (P&IR), HC OF INDIA, No. 153, Anna Salai, Chennai-600002, Tamilnadu.

13/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:51 pm ) WP.No.18140 of 2018

R.N.MANJULA, J.

jrs

W.P No.18140 of 2018

06.02.2025

14/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:51 pm )