Jeet Singh vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

R.L. Anand, J.—Shri Jeet Singh Chowkidar-cum-Care Taker of the Life Insurance Corporation of India has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India against Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short the Corporation) and its Divisional Manager and he made a prayer that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued in his favour and against the respondents directing the respondents to regularise his services. The petitioner has further prayed that he may be paid same salary and allowances which is being given to the regular employees holding similar post.

The case set up by the petitioner is that he was appointed as Chowkidar-cum-Care Taker on 3.8.1984 and since then he is continuing without any break. He was appointed on DC rates fixed from time to time. At the time of the filing of the writ petition, he was getting Rs. 1040/- per month. He submitted that the Branch Manager requested the Senior Divisional Manager that the petitioner may be allowed to continue as care taker/chowkidar and to this effect a letter, copy of which is Annexure P-2, has also been written. In the year 1985 again the Senior Branch Manager made a similar request that permanent post of Chowkidar/care taker be sanctioned. Yet by other letters (Annexures P-3 and P-4) similar requests were made. The petitioner had even made representations to the authorities that his services may be regularised and he should be awarded the same salary and allowances which is being paid to the regular employees holding the post of Chowkidar-cum-Care Taker, but in spite of his representations, no action was taken by the respondent authorities.

Thus, in short the case set up by the petitioner is that he is serving the Corporation since 1984 without any break and in spite of the recommendations made by the Senior Branch Manager to the Senior Divisional Manager for regularisation of the services of the petitioner on account of urgency, no action is being taken.

Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. They filed the written statement and denied the allegations. According to the respondents, the petitioner is not an employee of the Corporation. He was retained as a Care-taker of the Corporation Guest House on contract basis and initially for a period of six months and thereafter the contract was renewed from time to time on different terms and conditions. No attendance of the petitioner was marked nor any duty hours were fixed. He attends the Corporation''s Guest House as and when any guest stays in the Guest House. The petitioner is, thus, not entitled to regularisation of his services as an employee of the Corporation. It was also the stand of the respondents that the petitioner had failed to disclose violation of any statutory provisions, rules or regulations and, as such, he is not entitled to invoke the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In support of his case, the petitioner has placed certain documents on record regarding which a short reference can be made in the following paras. Annexure P-1 is the appointment letter dated 8.8.1984 issued by the Senior Divisional Manager intimating that Jeet Singh petitioner has been appointed as temporary Chowkidar/Caretaker w.e.f. 3.8.1984; Annexure P-2 is letter dated 7.1.1985 written by the Branch Manager to the Senior Divisional Manager in which it was stressed that there is strict need of the Chowkidar due to the reasons already conveyed and, therefore, it was urged to allow the petitioner to continue in his service as Caretaker/chowkidar. Further it was mentioned in this letter that the work and conduct of the petitioner was quite satisfactory; Annexure P-3 is another letter dated 29.6.1985 written by the Senior Branch Manager to the Senior Divisional Manager in which it was emphasised that Chowkidar may be provided to the Corporation on permanent basis and that the services of the present Chowkidar i.e. petitioner had been found to be quite satisfactory so he may be allowed to continue on permanent basis; Annexure P-4 is yet another letter written by the Senior Branch Manager on 31.12.1985 to the Senior Divisional Manager in which it was requested to extend the sanction for appointment of chowkidar on permanent basis because the earlier sanction had expired; Annexure P-5 is the letter dated 2.8.1986 in which the Senior Branch Manager has again made a mention to the Divisional Manager that the appointment of a Chowkidar is very much necessary for its office for the reasons already conveyed to the Head office in this regard; Annexure P-6 is letter dated 23.8.1986 written by Shri R.K. Bajaj to the Divisional Manager in which it was requested to allow him to retain the petitioner on permanent basis for the reasons enumerated in the letter annexed. In this very letter there is a reference of several reminders vide which request was made to preate a permanent vacancy in the vacancy of the petitioner so that he may not become a permanent employee of the Corporation; Annexures P-7, P-9 and P-10 are the various representations made by the petitioner in which he had requested for his regularisation and his meagre emoluments which he was getting from the Corporation and Annexure P-8 dated 5.5.1992 issued by the Branch Manager to the Senor Divisional Manager in which the application of the petitioner was forwarded for the purpose of regularisation of his services.

I have heard Shri Y.P. Malik on behalf of the petitioner and Shri B.R. Mahajan on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance, have gone through the record of this case.

A short point which requires determination by this Court is whether directions should be given to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner or not. This stands established from the record especially from Annexure P-1 that the petitioner, was appointed as temporary Chowkidar/caretaker w.e.f. 3rd August, 1984 and till today, he is serving. There is no indication in this letter that the petitioner was working on contract basis. Be that as it may, assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner was working on contract basis, question still would be whether it is viable for this Court to give directions to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner, who joined the service of the Corporation as far back as in the year 1984. Sixteen long years have expired and the petitioner is contributing his might in order to look-after the guests of the Guest House of the Corporation. The guests may come at any time during the day. Some time the guests go to the Guest House during the odd hours and the petitioner is the sole caretaker of the Guest House and in this manner it can be safely inferred that he is performing his duty without any security of service. This is against the very object of the Constitution. I am not in a position to subscribe to the argument of Mr. Mahajan that the appointment of the petitioner was purely contractual or for a limited period. The correspondence which had transpired between the Senior Branch Manager and the Senior Divisional Manager do indicate that it was always desired to convert this vacancy into a permanent one and need was always highlighted in these correspondences. The petitioner at no point of time was discharged from the service and there is no break in his service. There are other chowkidars/caretakers functioning in the corporation. It is a big project and one of the biggest undertakings of the Government of India. The petitioner who is in service for the last sixteen years cannot be allowed to hang imbalance. Security of service is the desire and wish of the employee and the petitioner has committed no wrong when he has approached this Court by making a prayer that his services should also be regularised by the Corporation as he has been discharging his duties honestly and without any complaint.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has invited my attention to E. Prabavathy v. The Life Insurance Corporation of India, 1993(4) SCC 343. I have gone through this judgment and it shows that the Corporation has made a policy of regularisation of temporary employees who had worked for 85 days in any two consecutive calendar years and the Corporation has the right to consider all others on merits subject to eligibility. The petitioner is in service since August 3, 1984.

In this view of the matter, I allow this petition and a writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner as per the policy framed by it with in two months from receipt of he copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to the other consequential benefits, such as benefit of pay, seniority etc. There shall be no order as to costs. Dasti order.

Petition allowed.