Madras High Court
P.S.Nagarajan vs The Chairman on 2 September, 2016
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.09.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P(MD)Nos.1622 of 2016, 1828, 1829, 4488 to 4490, 7547
and 9337 of 2016
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.1384, 1385, 5245, 5246, 1576, 5247, 4041 to 4046, 6320, 7422 and
7396 of 2016
W.P.(MD)No.1622 of 2016
P.S.Nagarajan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Central Office,
?Yogakshema?
Mumbai-400 021.
2.The Executive Director (M-B&AC),
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Marketing Bancassurance & Alt.Ch.Department,
Central Office,
?Yogakshema? (West Wing),
J.B.Marg, Mumbai-400 021.
3.The Zonal Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Souther Zonal Office,
Old No.102, New No.153, LIC Building,
Anna Salai, Mount Road,
Chennai-625 002.
4.The Senior Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Divisional Office, ?Jeevan Prakash?
Bridge Station Road, Sellur,
Madurai-625 002. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records on the file of the fourth respondent in connection with the order
passed by him in Ref:B&AC/dated 28.04.2015 and quash the same and direct the
respondents to continue the petitioner in the post in which he was appointed
or in any other post to which he is eligible with all monetary and service
benefits.
!For petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.D.Selvanayagam
^For respondents: Mr.G.Prabhurajadurai
:COMMON ORDER
Eight Financial Services Executives appointed by the respondents by various orders for a period of three years on contractual basis renewable at the sole discretion of the Corporation subject to certain terms and conditions for another two years only, have come to this Court, questioning the correctness of the impugned order dated 28.04.2015 granting extension of contractual period to 8 years as Financial Services Executives, which automatically seized on 28.02.2016, on the ground that when all the petitioners were appointed in the respondent Corporation, after successful completion of qualifying test for the period of three years, subject to the extension of two years, the respondents fully being satisfied with the performance of the petitioner have allowed them to continue for a period of 8 years, whileso, all of a sudden, they cannot be refused with the continuous employment. As such, the act of the LIC proposing to terminate the petitioners' service after utilizing their service for nearly 7 to 8 years is not only arbitrary but also unreasonable.
2. Adding further Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in all the matters would submit that from the date of employment, the petitioners have been rendering their services satisfactorily and that could be seen from the repeated extension of their continuance which goes beyond the original term of the contractual period. In the meanwhile, they became overaged and as a result, if the respondents are allowed to terminate the services of the petitioners, they would be permanently rendered jobless and as a result they would not be in a position to get any employment in anywhere. In any event the act of the respondents proposing to terminate the services of the petitioners is against the dictum laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd., and another Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another and Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd., and another V. Tarun Kanti Sengupta and another reported in AIR 1986 SUPREME COURT 1571 and also in Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and others reported in AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 101. He has also placed before this Court several other judgments in support of his submissions.
3. Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents in W.P.(MD)Nos.4488 to 4490 of 2016 and W.P.(MD)No.9337 of 2016 and Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in W.P.(MD)Nos.1622, 1828 and 1829 of 2016 have urged this Court to dismiss these writ petitions on the ground that no writ petition is maintainable against any contractual appointment since all the petitioners were allowed to continue till they complete the full terms of contract. They also placed reliance before this Court the Division Bench Judgment of Kerala High Court passed in W.A.No.1707 of 2014, dated 09.03.2015, dismissing the same contentions made by the appellants there holding that the contractual appointment of the appellants cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, nor the appellants can be held to have any right to claim absorption in the regular service of the Corporation. The Honourable Division Bench of Kerala High Court, while dealing with the special enactment as Financial Services Executives working in the LIC, have answered the very same issues brought before this Court against the similarly placed persons and subsequently the said order was also affirmed by the Honourable Apex Court by dismissing the Special Leave Petition in 14641 of 2015, dated 09.03.2016. The learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that in view of the above said judgment, all the writ petitions should be dismissed, as there is no further issue for adjudication in the present writ petitions.
4. I fully agree with the submissions made by Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai.
5. Originally the terms of appointment dated 11.02.2008 clearly shows that all the petitioners were appointed only for a period of three years and all the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis for a period of three years as Finance Services Executives renewable at the sole discretion of the Corporation, subject to certain terms and conditions for another two years only. Clause 8 of the appointment order shows that the contract will be terminated forthwith without giving any notice to the appointee, in case, he fails to procure the stipulated minimum New Business in two successive quarters. Further it says that the contract shall also be liable to be terminated if he commits breach of any Statutory Provisions or if he is found to be indulging in activities detrimental to the interests of the Corporation.
6. As per the original order of appointment, the petitioners were allowed to work for three years. By another order, the term of contract was extended till 28.02.2016. Therefore, when the petitioners have accepted contractual appointment for a period of three years as Finance Services Executives renewable at the sole discretion of the Corporation subject to certain terms and conditions for another two years only, after receiving intimation from the respondents communicating their last date of service in view of the completion of extension period on 28.02.2016, they cannot come to this Court.
7. A similar issue has been found against all these petitioners in the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court passed in W.A.No.1707 of 2014, dated 09.03.2015 and the relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:
?31. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the contractual appointment of the appellants cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, nor the appellants can be held to have any right to claim absorption in the regular service of the Corporation.?.
The afore said judgment has also been affirmed by the Honourable Apex Court on 09.03.2016 by dismissing a SLP (C) No.14641/2015 challenging the same.
8. However taking into account together the fact that all the petitioners were allowed to work for a period of 8 years and in the meanwhile they became overaged and they have also become ineligible to seek any employment either in the State or Central service, this Court, finding that their services have not been terminated on any extraneous reason, hereby directs the respondents herein to consider their candidatures for future employment as and when vacancies arise to any equivalent post by granting them relaxation of age only.
9. At this juncture, Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that instead of giving a direction to the respondents, liberty may be given to respondents to consider the case of the petitioners, since the respondents also placed this issue before the Executive Committee to consider for grant of age relaxation.
10. This Court hopes and trusts that the request of the petitioners for grant of age relaxation would be considered in their favour.
11. With the above observations all the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
To
1.The Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, ?Yogakshema?, Mumbai-400 021.
2.The Executive Director (M-B&AC), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Marketing Bancassurance & Alt.Ch.Department, Central Office, ?Yogakshema? (West Wing), J.B.Marg, Mumbai-400 021.
3.The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Souther Zonal Office, Old No.102, New No.153, LIC Building, Anna Salai, Mount Road, Chennai-625 002.
4.The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, ?Jeevan Prakash?
Bridge Station Road, Sellur, Madurai-625 002..