KARUPPASAMY vs THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION

W.P.Nos.36243 of 2023 etc., batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.P.Nos.36243, 34482, 34484 and 34486 of 2023
CNR:{HCMA011944132023}
and
W.M.P.Nos.36241, 34385, 34388 & 34390 of 2023 & 8686 of 2024
W.P.No.36243 of 2023
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
__________
Page1 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 04:36:56 pm )

W.P.Nos.36243 of 2023 etc., batch
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
__________
Page2 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 04:36:56 pm )

W.P.Nos.36243 of 2023 etc., batch
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)
__________
Page3 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 04:36:56 pm )

W.P.Nos.36243 of 2023 etc., batch
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.
__________
Page4 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 04:36:56 pm )

W.P.Nos.36243 of 2023 etc., batch
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
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
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr.P.Mahadevan
__________
Page5 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 04:36:56 pm )

W.P.Nos.36243 of 2023 etc., batch
in W.P.Nos.34482,
34484 and 34486 of
2023
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
__________
Page6 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 04:36:56 pm )

W.P.Nos.36243 of 2023 etc., batch
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
__________
Page7 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 04:36:56 pm )

W.P.Nos.36243 of 2023 etc., batch
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.
__________
Page8 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 04:36:56 pm )

W.P.Nos.36243 of 2023 etc., batch
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
__________
Page9 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 04:36:56 pm )

W.P.Nos.36243 of 2023 etc., batch
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
__________
Page10 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 04:36:56 pm )

W.P.Nos.36243 of 2023 etc., batch
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
__________
Page11 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 04:36:56 pm )

W.P.Nos.36243 of 2023 etc., batch
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
__________
Page12 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 04:36:56 pm )

W.P.Nos.36243 of 2023 etc., batch
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.
__________
Page13 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 04:36:56 pm )

W.P.Nos.36243 of 2023 etc., batch
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.
__________
Page14 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 04:36:56 pm )

W.P.Nos.36243 of 2023 etc., batch
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.
__________
Page15 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 04:36:56 pm )

W.P.Nos.36243 of 2023 etc., batch
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.
__________
Page16 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 04:36:56 pm )

W.P.Nos.36243 of 2023 etc., batch
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
__________
Page17 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 04:36:56 pm )