Bombay High Court
Vinod Nakushrao Bhosle And Others vs Life Insurance Corporation, Central … on 7 April, 2025
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2025:BHC-NAG:4362-DB
WP-4337-2023(J).odt 1/23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4337 OF 2023
1. Vinod Nakushrao Bhosle, Aged 45 yrs, Occu. Service,
R/o Pardhi Colony, Camp Amravati, Tah. & Dist. Amravati.
2. Deepak Manoharrao Photfode, Aged 45 yrs, Occu.
Service, R/o Gautam Ward, Hinganghat, Tah.
Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha.
3. Nitin Shankarrao Dabharde, Aged 43 yrs. Occu.
Service, R/o Pradhnya nagar, nanduri road,
saint Tukdoji ward, Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha.
4. Sudhir Kisanrao Thorat, Age 46 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Gajanan Nagar, Bicchu Tekadi Camp, Amravati,
Tah. & Dist. Amravati.
5. Manoj Marotrao Sawant, Age 43 yrs, Occu. Service,
R/o Sawant Plot, Namdev Mandir Road, Gadge
Nagar, Amravati, Tah. & Dist. Amravati.
6. Pravin Sudhakar Adhau, Age 46 yrs., Occu. Service,
R/o Praful Colony, Sai Nagar, Amravati, Tah. &
Dist. Amravati.
7. Vinod Ramesh Harne, Age 43 yrs., Occu.Dr.R/o Panjabrao
Hospital, Amravati, Tah. & Dist. Amravati.
8. Sachin Nanasaheb Raut, Age 44 yrs, Occu. Service,
R/o Kalefile, Washim, Tah. & Dist. Washim.
9. Sheikh Nayum Sheikh Nawab, Age 42 yrs. Occu.
Service, R/o Isapur, Tah.Digras, Dist.Yavatmal.
10. Sheikh Ayyub Sheikh Ghudu, Age 43 yrs. Occu.Service,
R/o Malipura, Achalpur, Tah.Achalpur, Dist.Amravati.
11. Manoj Nandlal Tank, Age 44 yrs., Occu. Service,
R/o Walmiknagar, Mehkar, Tq. Mehkar, Dist. Buldana.
12. Sumedh Samadhan Wankhade, Age 47 yrs.
Occu.Service, R/o shikshak Colony, Tathagat Nagar,
Khamgaon, Dist. Buldana.
13. Jayendra Punjaram Rokade, Age 45 yrs. Occu.
Service, R/o Sant Gajanan Sankul, Gita Nagar,
Akola, Tah. & Dist. Akola.
WP-4337-2023(J).odt 2/23
14. Samarth Vilas Manwatkar, Age 44 yrs., Occu.
Service, R/o Samata Colony, Caulkhed, Ring
Road, Akola, Tah. & Dist. Akola.
15. Bandu Mahadeo More, Age 45 yrs., Occu.Service,
R/o At Dasbdki, Post Bhaurad, Tah.& Dist.Akola.
16. Pankaj Devidas Navalkar, Age 42 yrs, Occu.
Service, R/o Vanashri Colony, Kandli, Post.Paratwada,
Tah. Achalpur, Dist. Amravati.
17. Haridas Nivrutti Jagtap, Age 45 yrs., Ajispur, Post
Nandrakoli, Tah. & Dist. Buldana.
18. Mangal Mahadevrao Meshram, Age 45 yrs., Occu.
Service, R/o Talavfail, Panchashil Chowk, Yavatmal,
Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal.
19. Umesh Awdhutrao Mohod, Age 43 yrs, Occu.Service,
R/o Prabuddha Nagar, Near Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar
Statue, Wadhali, Amravati, Tah.& Dist. Amravati.
20. Akash Shivcharan Makeshwar, Age 41 yrs, Occu.
Service, R/o Behind VMV College, Ganeshpeth,
Naredi Nagar, Amravati, Tah.& Dist. Amravati.
21. Rajendra Gopalrao Sakhare, Age 45 yrs, Occu.
Service, R/o Chincholi (Bk), Tah. Anjangaon
Surji, Dist. Amravati.
22. Vinod Harishchandra Parakhi, Age 39 yrs, Occu.
Service, R/o Bodhe Nagar, Chikhalgaon,
Tah. Wani, Dist. Yavatmal.
23. Punjab Namdeo Tayade, Age 48 yrs, Occu. Service,
R/o 7A, Mayur Residency, Mahadev Khori, Gajanan
Nagar, Amravati, Tah. & Dist. Amravati.
24. Sunil Panditrao Susatkar, Age 47 yrs., Occu.Service,
R/o Flat No.107, Godawari Apartment, Yogiraj
Colony, Tapowan, Tah. & Dist. Amravati.
25. Sudhakar Madhukar Chaudhari, Age 44 yrs, Occu.
Service, R/o Khallar Balaji, Post. Uttamsara,
Tah. Bhatkuli, Dist. Amravati.
26. Ravindra Sadashivrao Kamatkar, Age 38 yrs. Occu.
Service, R/o Gaikwad Fail, Near Bus Stand Wani,
Tah. Wani, Dist. Yavatmal.
27. Ajay Narayanrao Dhawas, Age 44 yrs., Occu.Service,
R/o Chikhalgaon, Tah. Wani, Dist. Yavatmal.
28. Dinesh Sureshrao Bamnote, Age 42 yrs, Occu.
Service, R/o Nimbhora Raj, Tah.Dhamangaon
Rly. Dist. Amravati.
WP-4337-2023(J).odt 3/23
29. Sandeep Madhukar Mundawane, Age 41 yrs, Occu.
Service, R/o Virul (Ronghe), Tah. Dhamangaon
Rly, Dist. Amravati.
30. Umesh Sadashivrao Neware, Age 42 yrs, Occu.
Service, R/o Dabhada, Tah.Dhamangaon Rly,
Dist. Amravati.
31. Vinod Dnyandev Chimankar, Age 44 yrs., Occu.
Service, R/o Kadampur Post Long Gurav,
Tah. Khamgaon, Dist. Buldana.
32. Devidas Dattatray Kamble, Age 42 yrs, Occu.
Service, R/o Ambedkar Nagar, Digras,
Tah. Digras, Dist. Yavatmal.
33. Yogiraj Kacharu Patange, Age 44 yrs., Occu.
Service, R/o Talao Layout, Pusad, Tah.Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
34. Vijayrao Vasantrao Akhadkar, Age 43 yrs., Occu.
Service, R/o Bhojala, Tah.Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal.
35. Santosh Datta Sawant, Age 46 yrs, Occu.Service,
R/o Poharadevi, Tah.Manora, Dist. Washim.
36. Gajanan Parashram Kele, Age 44 yrs, Occu.Service,
R/o Jambhrun Parande, Post Kata, Washim,
Tah. & Dist. Washim.
37. Anil Govindrao Pinjarkar, Age 45 yrs, Occu.Service,
R/o Near Balaji Mandir, Washim, Tah.&Dist. Washim.
38. Ravi Dipakrao Sonone, Age 42 yrs, Occu. Service,
R/o Near Ghantibaba Mandir, Digras, Tah.Digras,
Dist. Yavatmal.
39. Virendra Kashinath Shirsat, Age 43 yrs, Occu.Service,
R/o Old I.U.D.P. Colony, Beside Bang Hospital,
Washim, Tah. & Dist. Washim.
40. Azharoddin Anwaroddin Momin, Age 42 yrs., Occu.
Service, R/o Old City, Mominpura, Ward No.10,
Murtizapur, Dist. Akola.
41. Gopal Ashokrao Langde, Age 45 yrs., Occu.Service,
R/o Shastri Nagar, Godamfail, Yavatmal, Tah. &
Dist. Yavatmal.
42. Suresh Dnyandeo Sonune, Age 43 yrs, Occu.
Service, R/o At Post Dusha, Tah.& Dist. Buldana.
43. Ramkisan Mungilal Mavaskar, Age 44 yrs, Occu.
Service, R/o Makhala (Temburdhana) Tah.
Chikhaldara, Dist. Amravati.
WP-4337-2023(J).odt 4/23
44. Rajendra Ramchandra Gondane, Age 45 yrs.,
Occu.Service, R/o Bangar Nagar, Near Waghapur
Naka, Yavatmal, Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal.
45. Maroti Sakharam Bachalkar, Age 45 yrs, Occu.
Service, R/o Jagat Mandir Road, New Umarsara,
Yavatmal, Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal.
46. Pradip Janardhan Wakode, Age 47 yrs., Occu.
Service, R/o Wazar, Tah.Khamgaon, Dist.Buldana.
47. Mohammad Sameer Gaffar Sheikh, Age 44 yrs,
Occu.Service, R/o Near Nagina Masjid, Mominpura,
Ward No.10, Wani, Dist. Yavatmal.
48. Yogesh Dnyandeo Wankhade, Age 47 yrs., Occu.
Service, R/o Zilla Parishad Colony, Khadki Bk.
Tah. & Dist. Akola.
49. Avinash Wamanrao Pachghare, Age 46 yrs, Occu.
Service, R/o Yavali Shahid, Tah. & Dist. Amravati.
50. Sandip ashokrao Barde, Age 45 yrs., Occu.Service,
R/o Shastri Nagar, Godamfail, Yavatmal,
Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal.
51. Gopal Tukaram Jadhao, Age 44 yrs., Occu.Service,
R/o Annabhau Sathe Nagar, Ward No.7, Mehkar,
Dist. Buldana.
52. Vishal Ramesh Ingole, Age 38 yrs. Occu.Service,
R/o Saraswati Nagar, Akot, Tah. Akot, Dist. Akola.
53. Vinod Ramesh Chandan, R/o Near Water Supply
Office,Sindhi Camp, Akot, Tah.Akot, Dist. Akola.
54. Raju Daduji Narnaware, Age 46 yrs. Occu.Service,
R/o Pusla, Ambedkar Nagar, Ward No.5, Tah.Warud,
Dist. Amravati.
55. Gajanan Bhaskar Wankhade, Age 45 yrs, Occu.Service,
R/o Dongar Khandala, Tah.& Dist. Buldana.
56. Amarsing Kisansing Solanke, Age 48 yrs, Occu.
Service, R/o Dasarkhed, Tah.Malkapur, Dist.Buldana. PETITIONERS
- VERSUS -
1. Life Insurance Corporation, Central Office Mumbai,
YOGAKSHEM, Jeevan Bima Marg, Post Box No.11709,
Mumbai, Through its Chairman.
2. Life Insurance Corporation, Central Office Mumbai,
YOGAKSHEM, Jeevan Bima Marg, Pos Box No.11709,
Mumbai, Through its Zonal Manager.
WP-4337-2023(J).odt 5/23
3. Life Insurance Corporation, Near Dafrin Hospital,
Amravati, Through its Senior Divisional Manager.
4. Life Insurance Corporation, National Insurance
Building, Sardar Vallabhai Patel Marg, Nagpur,
Through its Senior Divisional Manager. RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Shri D.N. Mudghale, Counsel for the petitioners.
Shri C.S. Kaptan, Senior Advocate with Shri R.N.Badhe, Counsel for the respondents.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 07, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of
the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners’ prayer in the present writ petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India are as under :-
“(i) Allow the petition in the interest of justice.
(ii) issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction to respondents to regularize the service of the petitioners
as they are completed the 13 to 17 years in service on temporary
basis as on today.
(iii) issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction to the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3, Life Insurance
Corporation of India shall conduct special written examination of
petitioners at par with the petitioners in W.P. No.5407/2022 passed
by this Hon’ble Court (Annexure-J).
(iv) In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the
petition may kindly be heard and decided at the stage of admission.
(v) direction to the respondents to conduct the examination of the
petitioners as per the procedure followed in Civil Appeal Nos.953-
968 of 2005 of Apex Court dtd. 18.01.2011 and the judgment passed
by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.4553
of 2015 dated 29.06.2018 and allied matters. (Annexure-M)
WP-4337-2023(J).odt 6/23
(vi) Grant any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in
the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. All the petitioners were registered with the District Employment
Exchange in Nagpur and Amravati District and their candidature was
accordingly sponsored which led to their selection on Class-IV post. Each
petitioner has put in more than ten years of continuous service with the
respondents in the said capacity as some of the petitioners were appointed way
back in 2003, whereas one of the petitioners was appointed in 2010. It appears
that the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.953-968 of 2005 [LIC of India &
Another Etc. Versus D.V. Anil Kumar Etc. ] had issued directions on January 18,
2011 which read thus:-
“Mr.Ravinder Sethi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Life Insurance Corporation of India has placed before us an affidavit
dated 18th January, 2011, filed by Shri C.B. Paliwal, Secretary
(Legal), LIC of India. In the said affidavit, it is stated that as a one
time measure, appellant No.1 has formulated a Scheme whereunder
all the eligible temporary Class IV employees as also the open market
candidates who had taken the examination for recruitment as Class
IV employees in the year 1996, and are respondents in these cases
shall be absorbed. The terms and conditions of the said Scheme are
enumerated in the affidavit and read as follows:
“One time limited examination for those temporary persons
who are working in LIC of India for more than five years and who
had possessed minimum eligible qualification and age as
prescribed at the relevant time of their entry into LIC of India
would be considered. For this purpose, LIC of India will hold a
limited written examination which will be in the vernacular
language with a limited syllabus which will be announced in
advance.
5. The successful short listed candidates shall be called for
the interview. Such of those persons who are successful in the
WP-4337-2023(J).odt 7/23interview shall be initially appointed and posted anywhere in
the respective Zone.
6. Such of those temporary employees who do not apply
and or not successful shall cease to be in the employment. It is
clarified that those temporary persons who are not governed
under these submissions, shall also cease to be in the
employment.
7. Those who are recruited shall be governed by the rules
as applicable to Class IV employees and they shall not be
entitled to claim any other benefit regarding their past service
rendered as temporary employees.
8. In so far as open market candidates who had appeared
in the written test at the relevant time and who were successful
in the same shall be called for interview along with temporary
employees. Such of those persons who shall be successful in
the interview shall be offered appointment and the conditions
as applicable to temporary persons in so far as offer of
appointment shall be applicable to the open market persons as
well.”
The above scheme for absorption is acceptable to learned
counsel appearing for respondents.
In that view of the matter, these appeals are disposed of with
the direction that the respondents shall be absorbed in terms of the
afore-extracted policy as expeditiously as practicable and in any case
not later than six months from today.
The original affidavit is also taken on record.
All the appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no
order as to costs.”
Since the abovereferred directions issued by the Apex Court were to be
implemented in the establishment of respondents throughout the country, the
petitioners moved their respective applications for regularization of their
services. However, the candidature of each of the petitioner was rejected on the
ground that they have put in less than five years’ service as on 08.01.2011, i.e.
the date of the order passed by the Apex Court.
WP-4337-2023(J).odt 8/23
4. The same has led to the petitioners preferring a petition being Writ
Petition No.2703 of 2011 [Nilesh Bhaskarrao Chaudhari & Others Versus Life
Insurance Corporation & Others] thereby questioning the decision of the
respondents of disqualifying their candidature. The said writ petition preferred
by the petitioners came to be dismissed on 14.06.2011 by the Division Bench of
this Court. The order of dismissal reads as under :-
“Heard.
Challenge is to stipulation in the scheme for appointment of
Peons in Life Insurance Corporation of India. The scheme has been
pronounced as per the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated
18.1.2011 and as per clause 5(ii), it is stipulated that temporary
persons working in Class IV cadre who are not governed under said
notice of employment shall cease to be in employment.
Contention before us is Hon’ble Apex Court has permitted
implementation of scheme for absorption as one time measure and
there is no question of anybody being thrown out of employment
because of the said scheme.
Fairly our attention is also drawn to the order of the Hon’ble
Apex Court dated 18.1.2011. We find that an affidavit was filed
before the Hon’ble Apex Court by LIC of India and as per clause (6)
therein, the temporary employees not applying or not getting
success, were to cease to be in employment. It is also clarified in that
clause that those temporary persons who are not governed under it,
shall cease to be in employment. Hon’ble Apex Court has accepted
this affidavit and permitted its implementation.
In view of this, we find challenge as presented, misconceived.
Petition rejected.”
5. The petitioners feeling aggrieved thereby preferred a special leave
petition being Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.16446 of 2011. The said
special leave petition was withdrawn with following order which was delivered
WP-4337-2023(J).odt 9/23
by the Apex Court on 23.04.2012.
“After addressing us for some time, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners seeks leave to withdraw the petition stating that
the petitioners would like to pursue some other appropriate remedy
as may be available to them in accordance with law. Accordingly, the
special leave petition is dismissed as not pressed. Application for
impleadment is also dismissed as not pressed.
Needless to add that we have not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the submissions made by learned counsel. As and when
afresh petition is filed, the same may be considered on its own
merits.”
6. Subsequent thereto, it appears that some of the petitioners in Writ
Petition No.2703 of 2011, to be more precise, S/shri Nilesh Bhaskarrao
Chaudhari, Sudhir Ashokrao Bhatkar, Amol Vijayrao Patne, Narendra Ajabrao
Tayade, Amol Ramdas Hurbade, Nilesh A. Fartode, Amol Gopal Belgane, Vinod
Bhagwant Gadbail, Ravindra Bhimrao Kokane, Prafulla Amrut
Chinchamalatpure, Rameshwar R. Watkar, Shailendra A. Ambekar and Rajesh J.
Kamble preferred Writ Petition No.5407 of 2022 seeking the relief of
consideration of their candidature for permanency on the establishment of the
respondents. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 27.03.2023 by
the Division Bench of this Court. The order therein reads thus:-
“We are not required to consider the submissions of the
petitioners on merits in view of the additional affidavit dated
27.03.2023 filed on behalf of the respondents.
2. We extract the affidavit verbatim :
“The Respondents 1 to 3 submit that without admitting any of
the grounds raised in the petition, they have taken a decision to
consider appointment of the Petitioners herein under the scheme of
2011,(in terms of Hon’ble Supreme court order Dated 18.1.2011 in
WP-4337-2023(J).odt 10/23C.A.No.953-968 LIC of India //vs// D.V. Anilkumar and others) i.e.
conducting written examination/ interview/pre-recruitment
medical examination of the petitioners. Such appointment shall be
offered as special case and only to those petitioners who are
declared successful in such examination/interview and other
norms and the appointments offered shall be with prospective date
only and the same shall not be treated as a precedent.”
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr.Desai would submit
that the process may be made time-bound.
4. The learned Counsel for the respondents Mr.Kothari states, on
the basis of instructions received, that the entire process shall be
complete with the next four months. We accept the statement as an
undertaking to the Court.
5. Considering that the contentions are not considered on merits,
we are reserving liberty to the petitioners to file substantive petition,
insofar as relief at prayer (C) is concerned.
6. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”
As a sequel of the aforesaid order, since the petitioners are claiming that they
are being discriminated by the respondents though they are similarly situated to
that of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.5407 of 2022, they have approached
this Court claiming the abovereferred reliefs.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the prayer for
consideration of petitioners’ claim for regularization in the employment of the
respondent-Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) has invited our attention to the
joining date of each of the petitioner in their respective offices at Nagpur or
Amravati. According to him, the petitioners are continuously working since 2006
and 2010 onwards till this date on temporary basis and have completed service
between fifteen to nineteen years, still they are not being considered for
regularization though other similarly placed employees have been granted the
WP-4337-2023(J).odt 11/23
benefit. According to him, even if in the first round of litigation, the petitioners
tried to have the benefit of the judgment in the matter of D.V. Anilkumar, (supra) at
Annexure E to the petition and their claim was turned down on the ground that
they have not completed five years of service, the aforesaid factual matrix would
reflect that the petitioners now have completed more than fourteen years of service
with the respondent LIC. The counsel for the petitioners, in this background,
would urge that the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of consideration of their
claim for permanency in the service in the light of the judgment in the matter of
D. V. Anilkumar (supra) and other judgment delivered in the case of other similarly
placed persons by the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad in Writ Petition
No 5020/2011 with connected matters, Pandurang Kashinath Shelke and others vs.
Union of India and others dated 27.07.2018, the judgment in the matter of Special
Civil Application No. 4553 of 2015 decided by the High Court of Gujarat at
Ahmedabad on 29.06.2018 with connected matters, Special Civil Application No.
16059 of 2018 by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad decided on 29.11.2021
and in the matter of Meghmathi Natvargiri Mansukhgiri vs. Life Insurance
Corporation of India and others in Special Leave Application No. 16058 of 2018
decided on 29.11.2021 reported in [ 2021 O Supreme (Guj) 1129] and the
judgment delivered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Principal Seat
Jabalpur in the matter of Sunil Somwane and others vs. Life Insurance Corporation
of India and others, decided on 25.09.2024 with connected matters.
8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the other similarly
placed employees who were also co-petitioners in Writ Petition No.2703/2011
WP-4337-2023(J).odt 12/23
decided on 14.06.2011 by this Court, are considered for grant of continuity in
service whose details are already narrated in the factual matrix referred
hereinabove. These co-petitioners in Writ Petition No.2703/2011 preferred Writ
Petition No. 5407/2022. In this background, it is urged that the petitioners be
granted benefit for consideration of their claim for regularization in the
employment of the respondent-LIC having regard to their long standing service of
more than fourteen years and the similar benefit being given to the other
employees like the petitioners.
9. While resisting the aforesaid claim, Mr. C.S.Kaptan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondents has invited our attention to the repeated
unsuccessful attempts carried out by the petitioners upto the Hon’ble Apex Court.
He has invited our attention to the order of this Court passed in Writ Petition
No. 2703/2011 on 14.06.2011 and the order dated 23.04.2012 delivered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the SLP preferred by the petitioners against the aforesaid
order dated 14.06.2011 delivered in Writ Petition No. 2703/2011. According to
Mr.. Kaptan, the learned Senior Counsel, the said orders will come in the way of the
petitioners in claiming the relief, as the Court has already adjudicated the claim of
the petitioners and rejected the same.
According to Mr. Kaptan, the observations by the Division bench of this
Court in the matter of Writ Petition No. 5407/2022, which was preferred by the
co-petitioners along with other petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2703/2011 are
based on the concessions and as such, said order will not bind the respondents to
grant or extend the benefit to the petitioners. Mr. Kaptan, would further urge that
WP-4337-2023(J).odt 13/23
just because the petitioners have put in more than fourteen years of uninterrupted
service by itself will not entitle them to claim the benefit of consideration of their
claim for the permanency particularly when, the petitioners are not qualifying the
requirements.
To substantiate the aforesaid contentions, Mr. Kaptan, has drawn support
from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Neelima Srivastava vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in [2021 (17) SCC 693] particularly
paragraphs 29 and 35, which read as under:
“29. It becomes absolutely clear from the above clarification that
similar decisions running counter to the principles settled in the
decision of Umadevi(State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC
1, will not be treated as precedents. It cannot mean that the judgment
of a competent court delivered prior to the decision in Umadevi (3)
and which has attained finality and is binding inter se between the
parties need not be implemented. Mere overruling of the principles, on
which the earlier judgment was passed, by a subsequent judgment of
higher forum will not have the effect of uprooting the final
adjudication between the parties and set it as naught. There is a
distinction between orverruling a principle and reversal of the
judgment. The judgment in question itself has to be assailed and got
rid of in a manner known to or recognised by law. Mere overruling of
the principles by a subsequent judgment will not dilute the binding
effect of the decision inter partes.
35. Thus, it is very well-settled that it is not permissible for the parties
to reopen the concluded judgments of the court as the same may not
only tantamount to an abuse of the process of the court but would have
far-reaching adverse effect on the administration of justice.”
As such, he would urge that the decision already rendered by the Division
Bench of this Court against the petitioners in 2011 which was confirmed by the
Apex Court cannot be re-opened. Mr. Kaptan would further urge that the Apex
Court in the matter of M. Nagabhushana vs. State of Karnataka reported in
WP-4337-2023(J).odt 14/23
[2011 (3) SCC 408] has considered the applicability of doctrine of res judicata and
has made the following observations in paragraphs 11, 12, and 13.
“11. We find that disregarding the aforesaid clear finding of this Court,
the appellant, on identical issues, further filed a new writ petition out of
which the present appeal arises. That writ petition, as noted above, was
rejected both by the learned Single Judge and by the Division Bench in
clear terms. It is obvious that such a litigative adventure by the present
appellant is clearly against the principles of Res Judicata as well as
principles of Constructive Res Judicata and principles analogous
thereto.
12. The principles of Res Judicata are of universal application as they
are based on two age old principles, namely, ‘interest reipublicae ut sit
finis litium’ which means that it is in the interest of the State that there
should be an end to litigation and the other principle is ‘nemo debet his
ve ari, si constet curiae quod sit pro un aet eademn cause’ meaning
thereby that no one ought to be vexed twice in a litigation if it appears
to the Court that it is for one and the same cause. This doctrine of Res
Judicata is common to all civilized system of jurisprudence to the extent
that a judgment after a proper trial by a Court of competent jurisdiction
should be regarded as final and conclusive determination of the
questions litigated and should for ever set the controversy at rest.
13. That principle of finality of litigation is based on high principle of
public policy. In the absence of such a principle great oppression
might result under the colour and pretence of law in as much as
there will be no end of litigation and a rich and malicious litigant will
his succeed infinitely vexing his opponent by repetitive suits and
actions. This may compel the weaker party to relinquish his right.
The doctrine of Res Judicata has been evolved to prevent such an
anarchy. That is why it is perceived that the plea of Res Judicata is
not a technical doctrine but a fundamental principle which sustains
the Rule of Law in ensuring finality in litigation. This principle seeks
to promote honesty and a fair administration of justice and to
prevent abuse in the matter of accessing Court for agitating on issues
which have become final between the parties.”
10. According to Mr. Kaptan, Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India will
have no applicability in the facts of the case in hand, in view of unsuccessful earlier
WP-4337-2023(J).odt 15/23
round of litigation contested by the petitioners, and has drawn support from the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Ranbirsingh Vs. S. K. Roy,
Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others reported in [2022 Live
Law (SC) 417 ] particularly paragraph 57 which reads as under:
“57. The Court is now confronted with claims on behalf of the workers
that the principle which has been enunciated in the Srivastav Award
and which has been restored by the two-judge Bench in TN
Terminated Employees Association (supra) much apply to all workers
subsequently engaged by applying Section 18(3)(d) read with Section
17A of the ID Act. Hence, a balance will now have to be drawn by this
Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution, which while on the one hand factors in the finality which
has attached to the judgment in TN Terminated Employees Association
(supra) but on the other hand also factors in the essential concerns
which have been expressed before this Court by LIC. The formula of
providing absorption to part-time, badli or temporary workers who
have put in 85 days in any two calendar years in a Class III post or 70
days in any three calendar years in a Class IV post will, unless a
balance were to be drawn, become an avenue for disregarding the
need for an open and transparent process of recruitment by a public
section corporation governed by the rule of law and the mandate of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The judgments of this Court, in
the context of public employment, lay stress on providing equality of
opportunity. As we have recorded earlier in the course of the
statements of facts, LIC had been restrained, due to the interim orders
which were passed in the course of the various proceedings, from
taking recourse to recruitment through the open market. LIC having
been restrained by judicial orders from pursuing an open recruitment
process, the situation which has now arisen is that unless a balance
were to be drawn, absorption of part-time and badli workers would
become a substitute for a recruitment process based on sanctioned
posts, consistent with the principles of reservation and pursued on the
basis of a structured recruitment which gives equal opportunities to all
applicants. Such a consequence is a serious detriment to
constitutional parameters and to the duty of LIC as a public employer
to follow a process which is fair and in consonance with Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution. An open and competitive process for
recruitment will enable LIC to recruit the best among the available
WP-4337-2023(J).odt 16/23talent. Substituting this by a back-door entry will be detrimental to
the interests of the corporation which is governed by statute.
As such, he has sought dismissal of the writ petition.
11. We have considered the rival claims in the matter.
12. On facts, we are first required to be clearer particularly about the conduct of
the respondent employer. The fact about the petitioners having put in continuous
service in Class-IV category for a period of more than fourteen years is not disputed
by the respondents. It is also not in dispute that in the earlier round of litigation
initiated by the petitioners way back in 2011 they were held to be not qualified as
the requirement as was directed by the Apex Court in the matter of D.V.Anilkumar,
etc (supra) was not satisfied by the petitioners by putting in five years of
compulsory service. Such status of the petitioners has led to their writ petition
bearing Writ Petition No. 2703 of 2011 being dismissed on 14.06.2011 which was
confirmed in SLP (Civil) No. 16446 of 2011 decided on 23.04.2012.
However, we are equally required to be sensitive to the fact that the SLP was
withdrawn by the petitioners and they were permitted to take appropriate remedy
as is available in accordance with law. The order passed by the Apex Court, so also
by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2703 of 2011, read thus:
Order in Writ Petition No. 2703 of 2011
“Heard.
Challenge is to stipulation in the scheme for appointment
of Peons in Life Insurance Corporation of India. The scheme has
been pronounced as per the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court
dated 18.1.2011 and as per Clause 5(ii), it is stipulated that
temporary persons working in Class IV cadre who are not
governed under the said notice of employment shall cease to be in
WP-4337-2023(J).odt 17/23employment.
Contention before us is Hon’ble Apex Court has permitted
implementation of scheme for absorption as one time measure
and there is no question of anybody being thrown out of
employment because of the said scheme.
Fairly our attention is also drawn to the order of the
Hon’ble Apex Court dated 18.1.2011. We find that an affidavit
was filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court by LIC of India and as per
clause (6) therein the temporary employees not applying or not
getting success, were to cease to be in employment. It is also
clarified in that clause that those temporary persons who are not
governed under it, shall cease to be in employment. Hon’ble Apex
Court has accepted this affidavit and permitted its
implementation.
In view of this, we find challenge as presented,
misconceived. Petition rejected.”
Order in SLP(Civil) No. 16446/2011
“After addressing us for some time, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners seeks leave to withdraw the petition
stating that the petitioners would like to pursue some other
appropriate remedy as may be available to them in accordance
with law. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed as
not pressed. Application for impleadment is also dismissed as not
pressed.
Needless to add that we have not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the submissions made by the learned counsel. As
and when afresh petition is filed the same may be considered on
its own merits.”
13. It appears that subsequent thereto, the co-petitioners in Writ Petition
No. 2703 of 2011 have preferred Writ Petition No. 5407 of 2022. In the said writ
petition, the respondents have taken a stand supporting their claim of consideration
for grant of recruitment. The writ petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5407 of 2022
were the petitioners in Writ Petition No.2703 of 2011 at Serial Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 10,
13, 14, 17, 22, 43, 44, 47 and 53 whose names in the cause title as could be
gathered from page 161, are as under:
WP-4337-2023(J).odt 18/23
1. Shri Nilesh Bhaskarrao Chaudhari
2. Shri Sudhir Ashokrao Bhatkar
3. Shri Amol Vijayrao Patne
4. Shri Narendra Ajabrao Tayade
5. Shri Amol Ramdas Hurbade
6. Shri Nilesh A. Fartode
7. Shri Amol Gopal Belgane
8. Shri Vinod Bhagwant Gadbail
9. Shri Ravindra Bhimrao Kokane
10. Shri Prafulla Amrut Chinchamalatpure
11. Shri Rameshwar R. Watkar
12. Shri Shailendra A. Ambekar
13. Shri Rajesh J. Kamble
In Writ Petition No. 5407 of 2022, the respondents have taken the stand in
their affidavit which led to the passing of the order dated 27.03.2023. The order
dated 27.03.2023 along with the extract of affidavit filed by the respondents have
been referred above.
14. As a sequel of the aforesaid order dated 27.03.2023 and the affidavit filed by
the respondents in the said writ petition leads this Court to draw a conclusion that
the respondents are conducting themselves even though they are State within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India in a most discriminatory manner
thereby violating the mandate provided under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. The petitioners who were initially contesting the claim for
grant of employment in 2011 along with the present petitioners are treated
favourably by the respondents by making concessions in the above referred writ
petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 5407 of 2022.
Apart from above, the similarly placed candidates like the petitioners who
are in the employment of the respondents have approached the various High Courts
WP-4337-2023(J).odt 19/23
including that of High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad and High Court of Madhya
Pradesh at Jabalpur and based on the scheme laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the matter of D.V. Anilkumar (supra), the High Courts extended the benefit
to the similarly placed candidates of consideration of their claim for the
permanency in the employment. The details of the judgment are already referred
by us in the factual matrix viz. the submissions of the counsel for the petitioners.
15. In the aforesaid background, if we consider the position of law laid down by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs.
Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others reported in 2015 (1) SCC 347, paragraph 22
of the said judgment is worth referring to, which reads as under:
“22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the
aforesaid judgments, cited both the appellants as well as the
respondents, can summed up as under.
22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees
is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons
need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so
would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied
in service matters more empathically as the service jurisprudence
evolved by this Court from to time postulates that all similarly
situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the
normal rule would be that merely because other similarly
situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not
to be treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-recognised
exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as
acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful
action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up
after long delay only because of the reason that their
counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time
WP-4337-2023(J).odt 20/23succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that
the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly
situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as
fence-sitters and laches and delay, and/or the acquiescence,
would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases
where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in
rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated
person, whether they approached the court or not. With such a
pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to
itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons.
Such a situation can occur when the subject-matter of the
decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of
regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India).
On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in
personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue
to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated
expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from
the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get
the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to
satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and
delays or acquiescence.”
16. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that identically situated persons need to
be treated alike by extending the benefits which are granted to the similarly placed
persons. However, the said principle is required to be applied in the service matter
as the similarly situated persons who have not approached the Court would not be
entitled for the similar benefit on the ground of well recognized exceptions in the
form of delay and laches as well as acquiescence. The Hon’ble Apex Court has
authoritatively pronounced that the similarly placed employees must be treated as
fence-sitters, however it has further held that this exception may not apply in those
cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with an
WP-4337-2023(J).odt 21/23
intention to give benefit to similarly placed persons having approached the Court or
not for seeking the same benefit. As such, the obligation is cast upon the
respondent employer to treat the petitioners similar to that of the other candidates
who were the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5407 of 2022.
In case, if the respondents intend to have some different stand in the matter
as has been taken in the case in hand, the same will lead to violation of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution being endorsed by this Court. The respondents who are
the State within the meaning of Article 12 can not conduct themselves contrary to
the mandate provided under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
17. No doubt, Mr. Kaptan, learned Senior Counsel, has relied on the order of this
Court delivered in Writ Petition No. 2703 of 2011 and the order passed in SLP
(Civil) No.16446 of 2011 so as to argue that the petitioners are not entitled to the
benefit in view of attraction of principle of res judicata. It is no more res integra
that the principle of res judicata is applicable to Writ Petitions also as has been
reiterated in P. Bandopadhya v. Union of India , [(2019) 13 SCC 42]. However, for
the purpose of adjudicating on the issue of res judicata, it is necessary that the
same issue has been adjudicated in the former suit. ( Prem Kishore v. Brahm
Prakash [2023 SCC OnLine SC 356]. We are required to be sensitive to the factual
matrix of the case and what was sought to be adjudicated therein. In the said writ
petition, the petitioners’ claim of consideration for grant of permanency was
rejected on the ground that they have not completed the tenure of five years in the
employment of the respondents. The said claim of the petitioners was rightly
rejected by the High Court being contrary to the mandate provided under the
WP-4337-2023(J).odt 22/23
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of D. V. Anilkumar (supra). The
Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the challenge to the order of the High Court
in Writ Petition No. 2703 of 2011 dated 14.06.2011 has permitted withdrawal of
the SLP and granted liberty to take recourse to such remedy as is permissible and
available in law. Not only the Hon’ble Apex Court has permitted withdrawal of the
SLP, but it has also permitted filing a fresh petition which was directed to be
considered on its own merits.
18. That being so, the earlier round of litigation taken out by the petitioners
will not come in their way and in any case will not attract the principle of res
judicata, particularly when there was no adjudication on the issue under
controversy as they had not completed the tenure of five years in the employment
of the respondents at that point of time. The fact remains that the petitioners now
have completed more than five years of service, in the present case more than
fourteen years of service has been completed and the other similarly placed
employees, who were co-petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2703 of 2011, were treated
differently by favouring/by considering their claim for permanency. That being so,
the reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Neelima Srivastava (supra)
and of the M. Nagabhushana (supra) will be of hardly any assistance.
Apart from above, if we consider the directions issued in the matter of
D. V. Anilkumar (supra), particularly Clause 6, the respondents have conducted
themselves in a most discriminatory manner thereby not considering the claim of
the petitioners for more than fourteen years. As the respondents have for all these
WP-4337-2023(J).odt 23/23
years continued the petitioners in their service on temporary basis.
19. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are of the view that the petitioners have made
out a strong case for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction. That being so, the
petition stands allowed. We hereby direct the respondents to consider the claim of
the petitioners for regularization in the light of the observations made hereinabove.
The respondents must have regard to their stand in Writ Petition No.5407 of
2022 and the mandate issued in the case of other similarly placed employees which
were dealt with by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad and High Court of
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. Let the decision be communicated to the petitioners
within a period of three months from today.
20. In case if the respondent-employer decides to confer the status of permanency
or absorption on permanent basis, needless to clarify that the petitioners shall be
entitled for continuity of service from the date of appointment for all practical
purposes.
21. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to
costs.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W SAMBRE, J.)
Apte/Andurkar..
Signed by: Jayant S. Andurkar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 28/04/2025 16:10:45
[ad_1]
Source link