Madras HC Denies Regularisation To Workers Claiming LIC Service Since 2007, Citing No Sanctioned Posts Or Regular Recruitment

The petitioners sought mandamus directing LIC to regularise their services, claiming they had performed Class-IV duties for the Corporation for many years, in some cases from 2007, despite being engaged through outsourcing agencies.

They relied on attendance registers, vouchers and the Supreme Court’s order in Hashmuddin v. LIC.

LIC disputed that the petitioners were its employees and submitted that the vouchers concerned purchases and expenses, not salary payments.

The Court found that the records did not establish continuous service or the existence of sanctioned posts; the petitioners also did not claim appointment through regular recruitment.

Under State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, a court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot ordinarily direct regularisation, absorption or permanent appointment unless the employees were appointed through a regular recruitment process, in accordance with the relevant rules, against sanctioned vacant posts.

The Court also considered Ranbir Singh v. S.K. Roy, M.A. No. 1150 of 2019 in C.P. No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2000, order dated 27 April 2022, which confined the relevant LIC workers’ claims to persons who worked between 20 May 1985 and 4 March 1991 and provided for compensation in lieu of absorption, subject to verification.

The constitutional requirements of equality of opportunity in public employment under Articles 14 and 16 were also noted in the quoted Ranbir Singh decision.

The petitioners’ claimed service began after the period addressed in Ranbir Singh, and that decision therefore did not provide them a basis for regularisation.

Their vouchers recorded carriage, freight, cleaning-material and stationery expenses, rather than salary, while the attendance records did not establish the departments in which they worked or continuous service; some records related only to January 2021.

Further, no material showed that sanctioned posts existed, and the petitioners did not claim appointment through an open, rule-compliant selection process.

Applying Umadevi, the Court held that the asserted duration or nature of their work could not overcome those deficiencies.

All four writ petitions were dismissed; there was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.