Monetary compensation in lieu of job regularization is affirmed for eligible employees based on past judicial directives, while regularization through verification processes is mandated for historical employment claims.

ORDER :

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioners in both these petitions are before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“1. To issue a writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of the Writ of mandamus, to order and direct the respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioners herein as employees of the Respondent Corporation being Life Insurance Corporation of India through a scheme similar to the one as enumerated in Annexure-A dated 18.01.2011.

2. To direct the respondent Corporation to consider formulation of a scheme as per what was envisaged in the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Secretary, State of Karnataka V/s Uma Devi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 vide Annexure-D.

3. To issue directions and such other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit directing the Respondent Corporation not to engage any temporary employees or Badli/Daily wagers in future and make provisions for regular recruitment of Class III and IV Staff.

4. Pass such other Order or Orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit just and proper under the facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Heard learned counsel Smt.Kavitha S. Jadhav for Sri.Arun L. Neelopant, appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel Sri.A.P.Murari, appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioners 1 to 106 are said to have been engaged at various branch offices coming under the jurisdiction of respondent No.3 in the cadre of sub-staff or Group-D employees and have been working for long time ranging from 2 years to 24 years. The petitioners are now before this Court on the score that the petitioners would be disengaged.

4. Initially, on an apprehension that they would be disengaged from their services, but that did not come about, and the petitioners have been continuing to work. The claim of the petitioners as per the prayer that is sought is for regularisation of their services in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA v. UMADEVI reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of LIC OF INDIA v. D.V. ANIL KUMAR reported in 2011 SCC OnLine SC 1602, where the LIC had undertaken that they would formulate a scheme to regularise these daily wagers as a one time measure should be directed in the case at hand as well.

5. The learned counsel Sri.A.P.Murari, appearing for the respondents-Corporation places on record a subsequent judgment of a three Judge bench of the Apex Court in the case of RANBIR SINGH v. LIC , (2023) 17 SCC 196, which considers the judgment in the case of D.V. ANIL KUMAR supra and issues several directions. The directions are as follows:

“… … …

95. The dispute is now of an antiquity tracing back to nearly four decades. Finality has to be wrung down on the dispute to avoid uncertainty and more litigation. Nearly thirty-one years have elapsed since 1991. We have come to the conclusion that the claims of those workers who are duly found upon verification to meet the threshold conditions of eligibility should be resolved by the award of monetary compensation in lieu of absorption, and in full and final settlement of all claims and demands. Thus, this Court directs the following:

95.1. A fresh verification of the claims of workers who claim to have been employed for at least 70 days in Class IV posts over a period of three years or 85 days in Class III posts over a period of two years shall be carried out;

95.2. The verification shall be confined to persons who were working between 20-5-1985 and 4-3-1991;

95.3. All persons who are found to be eligible on the above norm shall be entitled