The Umadevi principle governs regularization of irregularly appointed employees, and any direction for regularization must be in line with this principle.

JUDGMENT

M. S. Karnik, J. - Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, inter alia, prays for the following substantive relief :-

'(a) That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction and order under article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, directing the Respondent to confer permanent status of employment on the present Petitioner and make him a permanent employee on and from 18th april, 2013 and grant all consequential benefits from the said date.

(B) That in alternative this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction and order under article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, thereby directing the Respondent devise a scheme similar to one which was enumerated as per the affidavit dated 18th January, 2011, before the Honourable Supreme Court and confer upon the Petitioner the benefit of the said scheme.

(C) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate, writ, direction or order and be pleased to direct the Respondent to grant such benefits to the Petitioner herein from 18th april, 2013, as applicable and eligible for a Permanent Employee of the Respondent.'

2. The claim for the aforestated reliefs is based on the following facts :-

The Petitioner in the first place enrolled himself with the Employment Exchange. Respondent no. 1- Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereafter 'LIC', for short) was in search of peons to be employed at Western Zonal office and hence such requirement was placed with the Employment Exchange. The petitioner was called for interview on april 10, 2006. By appointment letter dated april 12, 2006 (Exhibit 'a') the petitioner was appointed as a Peon on temporary basis at Western Zonal office of the LIC in a temporary vacancy that arose on account of seasonal and casual nature of the job. The petitioner was employed on wages of Rs.4,105/- (basic). The petitioner was appointed for 85 days (april 12, 2006 to July 5, 2006). The petitioner was then appointed from time to time on temporary basis upon issuance of fresh letters of appointment. The petitioner contends that the process of giving technical break to the petitioner continued till the year 2013 and on april 18, 2013 the petitioner was given an appointment letter where he was designated as a Temporary Peon.

3. The Petitioner was given a pay-scale of Rs.6,180/-(basic) which was increased with the passage of time. On the date of filing of the writ petition, i.e. august 5, 2021, the petitioner is drawing a salary of Rs.18,930/- (basic). The petitioner is given Dearness allowance, H.R.a. in addition to the basic pay. It is the petitioner's grievance that similarly situated employees as the petitioner, who had become permanent in the year 2012-2013 are drawing a basic pay of Rs.32,000/- to Rs.33,000/-. The petitioner is deprived of the benefits such as employee insurance, special insurance, pension, provident fund, gratuity and mediclaim to which the permanent employees are entitled to.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in continuous employment for past 15 years and therefore deserves to be conferred the status of permanent employee of LIC. Learned advocate relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of LIC of India and anr. etc. vs. D.V. anil Kumar etc. Civil appeal No(s).953-968 of 2005. to contend that similarly situated employees as the petitioner who were working on a temporary basis for a number of years had succeeded in persuading the Supreme Court for grant of permanency status whereupon a scheme was framed by LIC for absorption of such employees. In terms of the procedure laid down in the scheme, eligible employees were to be absorbed. Learned advocate submits that the petitioner's case is