A.M. Ahmadi, J. - (1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) In State of Haryana and Ors. v. Piara Singh & Ors. etc. etc., (JT 1992(5) SC 179 : 1992(3) S.C.T. 201), this Court indicated how regularisation of ad-hoc/temporary employees in Government and Public Sector Undertaking should be effected. While laying down the guidelines in this behalf this Court observed in paragraph 43 as under:- "The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an ad hoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an ad-hoc/temporary employee by a regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad-hoc/temporary employee." The LIC was asked to work out a scheme for the purposes of regularisation of employees who were granted ad hoc appointments for 85 days at interval from time to time. The learned counsel for the LIC has placed before us a scheme for regularisation of such ad hoc employees. We have given our anxious consideration to the scheme proposed by the LIC and have also heard both Mr. Ramamurthy and Mr. Salve at length and we are of the opinion that the scheme proposed by LIC is a reasonable one and commands acceptance, save and except the fact that the recruitment scheduled for November, 1992 will be postponed by not less than six weeks to enable the eligible ad hoc employees to compete with others for selection at the said recruitment. We are of the opinion that the relaxation granted to these ad hoc employees for having worked with the LIC in the past in the matter of age and qualification suffices. The further provisions that if such an ad hoc employee has worked between 20th May, 1985 and till date for 85 days in any two consecutive calendar years, is a reasonable stipulation for eligibility for regularisation. We are of the opinion, the scheme is in consonance with the guidelines which we have laid down in paragraphs 43 to 49 of Piara singh's judgment. Mr. Salve, the learned counsel for the LIC, also informed us that in regard to future ad hoc appointments/regularisation the LIC is in the process of making a scheme consistent with the guidelines laid down in Piara Singh's case so that this device of employment for 85 days which has not been approved may not be reported to in future. The scheme contained in Clauses (a) to (d) of paragraph 1, which is as under, is approved subject to the postponement of the recruitment scheduled in November, 1992 by at least six weeks and the LIC will proceed to regularise the employees eligible under the scheme in accordance therewith : Scheme : (a) All those temporary employees who have worked for 85 days in any two consecutive calendar years with the Life Insurance Corporation between 20th May, 1985 uptill date and who conformed to the required eligibility criteria for regular recruitment on the dates of their initial temporary appointment will be permitted to compete for the next regular recruitment to be made by the Life Insurance Corporation after the regular recruitment for these posts currently scheduled for November, 1992. (b) These candidates will be considered on their merits with all other candidates who may apply for such appointments, including those from the open market. (c) These candidates will be given an age relexation for applying for regular recruitment provided that they were eligible on the date of their first temporary appointment for securing regular appointment with the Life Insurance Corporation. (d) If these candidates are otherwise eligible, they can apply for regular recruitment in the normal course. This regularisation will, in the circumstances, be by select for appointment. We make the above clauses of the scheme a part of our order.
(3.) Mr. Ramamurthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that certain questions of law in regard to the interpretation of section 48 of the LIC Act, 1956, as amended by the LIC Amendment Act, 1981, and Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, arise for consideration in the present case in view of the judgment of the Madras High Court. We may state that we express no opinion on the said questions of law as they do not survive in view of the scheme which LIC has worked out and which we have approved. It is not necessary for us to go into those questions and we leave them open for decision in an appropriate case in future. The Civil Appeals will stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.;