- (1.) The petitioners, 99 in number and roughly hundred and more others were appointed by the management of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (L.I.C.) de hors the relevant recruitment rules as members of the sub-staff against the clear existing vacancies. They have put in between 5 to 12 years of service. The petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus directing the management of the L.I.C. to absorb all the petitioners on permanent basis and they have sought consequential relief to restrain the management of the L.I.C. from terminating the services of the petitioners.
(2.) In response to rule nisi, the respondents have filed counter-affidavit opposing the claim of the petitioners. In the counter, it is claimed that in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court relating to absorption/regularisation of the service of temporary/ad hoc/casual employees, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed by them; the Life Insurance Corporation of India Recruitment (of Class III and Class IV Staff) Instructions, 1993 and Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993 govern the recruitment of the employees to the sub-staff of the Corporation; all the petitioners and roughly 100 and more others were appointed de hors the above rules and therefore they are not entitled to be regularised in the service on permanent basis; similar writ petitions W.P.No. 19426/96 and W.P. No. 24979/97 and W.A. No. 22 of 1998 filed before this Court were dismissed. A reply affidavit was filed by the petitioners to the counter-affidavit reiterating the same contentions taken in the main affidavit. Added to this, the petitioners have high-lighted in the reply affidavit the hardship that may be caused to them if the Court refuses to grant the relief.
(3.) Mr. G. Sudha, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that having regard to the length of service put in by the petitioners, they are entitled to be regularised in the service. In support of her submission, learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130, Arun Kumar Rout v. State of Bihar, AIR 1998 SC 1477, and the judgment of the Orissa High Court in Pramod Bank v. Registrar, Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology and others, 1998 Lab.I.C. 1694.;