R.L. Anand, J. - (1.) 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.
(2.) 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.
(3.) 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.;