WP/36243/2023 of KARUPPASAMY Vs THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION on 26 October 2026

1. Karuppasamy

2. V.Logesan

3. T.Pratheep

4. M.Kumar

5. G.Sudhakaran

6. P.Marimuthu

7. G.Dhineskumar

8. K.Dhaksinamoorthy

9. R.Vellingiri

10. S.Sukumar

11. A.Sureshkumar

12. S.Sureshkumar

13. K.Boobalan

14. R.Selvam

15. S.Sathiyanandan

16. S.Kumar

17. M.Munusami

18. M.Natarajan

19. K.Ramajayam

20. T.Prabhu

21. D.Ravichandran

22. C.Manivasagan

23. A.Saranraj

24. J.Stalin

25. C.Vinothini

26. S.Elumalai

27. A. Sathish Kumar

28. M .Karaimurugan

29. P.Shanmugam

30. M.Thangavel

31. K Govindaraj

32. S Gurusamy

33. R.Ramachandran

34. A.Mayakrishnan Hari ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India Rep. By Its Chairman, Central Office Jeevan Bheema Marg, Yogakshema, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021.

2. The Zonal Manager Life Insurance Corporation Of India Southern Zone, LIC Building Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

3. The Senior Divisional Manager LIC of India, Divisional Office Jeevan Prakash, Opp. ATC Depot Johnsonpet, Salem – 636 007.

4. The Senior Divisional Manager LIC of India, Divisional Office Sellur, Madurai -635 002.

5. The Senior Divisional Manager LIC of India, Divisional Office Jeevan Prakash, P.B.No.423 Arcot Road, Vellore -632 004.

6. Alert Security Services No.106, Sowrimuthu Street, Red Fields Road Coimbatore -641 045.

7. CIS Bureaus Facility Services Pvt Ltd No. 4, Pasumpon Street, Near UCO Bank, Madurai.

8. CIS Bureaus Facility Services Pvt Ltd 359, Anushya Complex, Vazhudhavur Road Mettupalayam, Pondicherry – 605 009. ..Respondent(s)

W.P.No.34482 of 2023 K.Maheswaran … Petitioner (s) Vs.

1. The Divisional Officer, Thanjavur, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Railway Station Road, Thanjavur – 613 201.

2. The Southern Regional Office, LIC of India, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

3. The Director (Personnel) Life Insurance Corporation of India, Marine Drive, Mumbai – 400 001. … Respondent (s) W.P.No.34484 of 2023 CNR:{HCMA012187082023} M.Periyasamy ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Divisional Officer Thanjavur, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Railway Station Road, Thanjavur - 613 201.

2. The Southern Regional Office LIC of India, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

3. The Director (Personnel) Life Insurance Corporation of India, Marine Drive, Mumbai - 400 001. ..Respondent(s) W.P.No.34486 of 2023 CNR:{HCMA012187092023} S.Shelladurai ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Divisional Officer Thanjavur, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Railway Station Road, Thanjavur-613 201.

2. The Southern Regional Officer LIC of India, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

3. The Director (Personnel) Life Insurance Corporation of India, Marine Drive, Mumbai-400 001. ..Respondent(s) Common Prayer : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent authorities to regularise the services of the petitioners. For Petitioner(s) in : W.P.No.36243 of 2023 For Petitioner(s) : Mr.V.N.Subramaniam for PP 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 20 and 21 Dr.M.Sathya Kumar for PP 1, 2, 5, 7, 11 to 19, 22 to 34 Mr.P.Mahadevan in W.P.Nos.34482, 34484 and 34486 of

For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Karthikei Balan Standing Counsel for R1 to R5 No appearance for R6 to R8 (in W.P.No.36243 of 2023) Mr.R.S.Anandan for R1 to R3 (in W.P.Nos.34482, 34484 and 34486 of 2023) C O M M O N O R D E R These Writ Petitions have been filed seeking a direction to the respondent – Life Insurance Corporation of India to regularise the services of the petitioners.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been working in the respondent - Corporation for more than ten years. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that in any recruitment process, there can only be two categories of employees, namely temporary or permanent and that there cannot be a third category of employees engaged through outsourcing.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further contend that the Management of the Life Insurance Corporation of India had filed an application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No(s).2268 of 2011 [Hashmuddin & Ors., Vs. LIC & Ors.,] wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 15.01.2020, directed the Corporation to extend certain benefits to the employees who had been granted temporary status.

4. It is the contention of the petitioners that they have been working in the respondent – Corporation since 2007 and the mere stand taken by the respondents that the petitioners were routed through outsourcing agency, cannot be accepted. It is also the contention of the petitioners’ counsel that the attendance register and payment vouchers issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India clearly establish their long and continuous service as Class-IV employees in the respondent - Corporation. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners having worked in the respondent - Corporation for more than twenty years, all of a sudden, relieving them as outsourced agency, thereby affecting their rights, cannot be permitted. Hence, the petitioners have come up with the present Writ Petitions seeking regularization of their services.

5. The aforesaid contentions were strenuously objected by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent - Corporation. It was contended that the petitioners were never employed by the Corporation, and even the vouchers relied upon by the petitioners, did not relate to the payment of salary and it was only the expenditure incurred towards the purchase of cleaning materials and carriage and freight charges. Therefore, such vouchers cannot be treated as proof of payment of salary to the petitioners.

6. It is the further contention of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent - Corporation that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ranbir Singh and Others vs. S.K.Roy, Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another (in M.A.No.1150 of 2019 in C.P.No.1921 of 2017 in C.A.No.6950 of 2000 etc., dated 27.04.2022), has categorically held that only those persons who had been permitted to work in the respondent – Corporation between 20.05.1985 and 04.03.1991, were directed to be regularized. However, according to the petitioners’ own case, they have been working only from 2007 onwards. Therefore, it was contended that, in view of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioners are not entitled to seek regularisation of their services.

7. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent - Corporation has also relied upon the judgments of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.30827 of 2019 [K.Subramanian and Others Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others, dated 29.04.2022] and W.P.No.29529 of 2018 [A.Ganesh and Others Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others, dated 28.02.2019], and hence, prays for dismissal of the present writ petitions.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

9. It is well settled proposition of law that a Court cannot direct the authorities to create or sanction posts for the purpose of regularising the services of employees.

10. In the case in hand, admittedly, there are no sanctioned posts. The petitioners contend that they have been working as Class-IV employees in the respondent - Corporation for more than two decades and, to substantiate the same, they have produced certain vouchers.

11. On a close perusal of the vouchers, it is seen that the said vouchers do not disclose any payment towards salary, whereas, it only refer about the amounts paid to individuals towards carriage and freight charges and the purchase of cleaning materials and stationery. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, for the work performed by the petitioners as Class-IV employees, the respondent - Corporation used to issue only such receipts. Yet, in all fairness, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no document has been produced before the Court with respect to the existence of the sanctioned posts in the respondent - Corporation.

12. While arguing, the learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to the judgment annexed in the typed set of papers in Civil Appeal No.2268 of

2011 (Hashmuddin & Ors., Vs. LIC & Ors.,) , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed certain benefits to be extended to the employees who were granted temporary status.

13. At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation drew the attention of this Court to the judgment in Ranbir Singh’s case (supra), particularly in paragraphs 74 and 75, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows : “74. The position as it now stands, results in a palpable conflict between the two judge Bench decision in TN Terminated Employees Association (supra) dated 18 March 2015 on the one hand and the earlier binding decision of a larger Bench in E Prabavathy (supra) on 23 October 1992 and of subsequent Benches. This conflict must be harmonised by taking recourse to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. In arriving at a conclusion, this Court finds that:

(i) The remit of the CGIT which resulted in the Dogra Report was confined to the process of verification, as distinct from an adjudication of rights and liabilities;

(ii) The Dogra Report is flawed because:

(a) The report failed to carry out an accurate verification of only those Class III workers who had put in at least 85 days of work in a period of two years and Class IV workers who had put in 70 days of work in a period of three years; (b) The lists which are appended to the report contain patent

inconsistencies and errors as a consequence of a failure to carry out an adequate verification; and

(c) The report accepted the claims for absorption of those workers who were specifically governed by the decision of this Court in E Prabavathy (supra), in spite of an express stipulation to the contrary in the order of this Court dated 23 October 1992 as well as in paragraph 75 of the Srivastav Award;

(iii) A public employer such as LIC cannot be directed to carry out a mass absorption of over 11,000 workers on such flawed premises without following a recruitment process which is consistent with the principles of equality of opportunity governed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such an absorption would provide the very back-door entry, which negates the principle of equal opportunity and fairness in public employment, which has been specifically decried by this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi.

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 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 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.”

14. In terms of the aforesaid decision, only those employees who had been permitted to work in the respondent - Corporation during the period from 20.05.1985 to 04.03.1991, are entitled to be absorbed with temporary status. Therefore, there is no direction in the said decision to regularise the employees who performed Class-IV duties subsequent to 1991. On a perusal of Ranbir Singh’s case, it is evident that the Hon’ble Supreme Court strongly condemned the proposal of the respondent - Corporation to regularize more than 11,000 employees, though certain directions were issued in that regard.

15. In the case in hand, even according to the petitioners, they have been working only from 2007 onwards. The attendance register produced before this Court does not disclose the Departments in which they worked, and some registers pertain only to January 2021.

16. Thus, on the basis of the vouchers and attendance register, this Court is not in a position to come to a conclusion that the petitioners had been in long and continuous service in the respondent - Corporation. It is also relevant to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Uma Devi and Ors, reported in [(2006) 4 SCC 1], wherein it was categorically held that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot issue directions for regularisation, absorption, or permanent appointment, unless the employees seeking regularisation were appointed pursuant to a regular recruitment process conducted in accordance with the relevant Rules against sanctioned vacant posts.

17. As already observed, this Court finds no material to establish that the posts in question were sanctioned posts. Furthermore, it is not the case of the petitioners that they were appointed in accordance with the relevant Rules through an open competitive selection process. In view of the above peculiar circumstances, this Court finds no merit in favour of the petitioners.

18. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 26-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ms To

1. The Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India Central OfficeJeevan Bheema Marg, Yogakshema, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021.

2. The Zonal Manager Life Insurance Corporation Of India Southern Zone, LIC Building Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

3. The Senior Divisional Manager LIC of India, Divisional Office Jeevan Prakash, Opp. ATC Depot Johnsonpet, Salem – 636 007.

4. The Senior Divisional Manager LIC of India, Divisional Office Sellur, Madurai -635 002.

5. The Senior Divisional Manager LIC of India, Divisional Office Jeevan Prakash, P.B.No.423 Arcot Road, Vellore -632 004.

6. The Divisional Officer, Thanjavur, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Railway Station Road, Thanjavur – 613 201.

7. The Southern Regional Office, LIC of India, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

8. The Director (Personnel) Life Insurance Corporation of India, Marine Drive, Mumbai – 400 001.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. ms W.P.Nos.36243, 34482, 34484 and 34486 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos.36241, 34385, 34388 & 34390 of 2023 & 8686 of 2024, 26-10-2026