Case Title : Ranbir Singh versus SK Roy, Chairman Life Insurance Corporation and Another
Summary
The Supreme Court has rejected a four-decade-old dispute regarding the regularization of part-time employees at the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC). The Supreme Court ruled that mass assimilation of over 11,000 employees without a recruitment process is not permissible for a public employer, as it must adhere to the principles of equal opportunity as outlined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The dispute concerned the regularization claims of personnel who had been employed from 20 May 1985 to 4 March 1991.
The Supreme Court approved the compromise in the 1989 case LIC v. Their Workmen and adopted the LIC-proposed scheme in the E Prabhavathy case in 1992. The court found that the Dogra Report, which supported workers’ claims, inadequately verified the employment status of only Class III and Class IV employees who had accumulated a minimum of 85 and 70 days of work experience, respectively, over a span of two and three years. The court mandated a fresh verification of the claims made by employees who claimed to have worked for Class IV for a minimum of 85 days over a two-year period or Class III for a minimum of two years and 70 days over a three-year period.
About the case
A mass assimilation of more than 11,000 employees without a recruitment process is not permissible for a public employer, the Supreme Court ruled in its rejection of a four-decade-old dispute regarding the regularization of part-time employees at the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC). Constitutional Articles 14 and 16 impose duties on LIC in its capacity as a statutory corporation. The corporation’s recruitment process must adhere to that of a public employer in order to satisfy its constitutional duty of maintaining impartiality and transparency. A bench of judges, including DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and Vikram Nath, proclaimed, “The public service abhors the practice of allowing back-door entries into service.” The subject of dispute concerned the regularization claims of personnel who had been employed from 20 May 1985 to 4 March 1991.
Initiated in the 1980s were numerous rounds of litigation concerning the absorption of temporary laborers. In 1988, the Supreme Court rendered a decision that resolved these conflicts when the LIC agreed to include impermanent employees who had been on the job from January 1, 1982 to May 20, 1985. The Supreme Court approved the compromise in the 1989 case LIC v. Their Workmen. The court adopted the LIC-proposed scheme in the E Prabhavathy case in 1992. The scheme’s objective was to grant regularization to all employees who had worked for a total of 85 days in any two consecutive years between 20 May 1985 and 23 October 1999. The issue at hand was whether part-time employees are subject to the most recent round of compromise provisions. “Evident and conspicuous errors” were present in the Dogra Report, which the bench noted supported the workers’ claims. Regarding the existence of redundant entries, the LIC had been the recipient of a complaint.
The Court ruled, among other things, that the report inadequately verified the employment status of only those Class III and Class IV employees who had accumulated a minimum of eighty-five and seventy days of work experience, respectively, over a span of two and three years. In addition, the bench noted that two separate benches rendered contradictory decisions in an earlier round of cases, further complicating the situation. “A directive to LIC, a public employer, to conduct a mass absorption of more than 11,000 employees on such flawed grounds is not permissible in the absence of a recruitment process that adheres to the principles of equal opportunity as outlined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.” In Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, the Court expressly condemned the principle of equal opportunity and equity in public employment. The Court stated that such an absorption would equate to a back-door entry that undermines these principles. After careful consideration, the Court concluded that workers who sincerely believe they meet the eligibility requirements upon verification should have their entitlements resolved either through monetary compensation in lieu of absorption, or through a full and final settlement of all claims and demands.
The Court mandated a fresh verification of the claims made by employees who claimed to have worked for Class IV for a minimum of 85 days over a two-year period or Class III for a minimum of two years and 70 days over a three-year period. Mr. Justice P K S Baghel, a former judge of the Allahabad High Court, and Shri Rajiv Sharma, a former district judge and UPHJS member, shall serve as committee members for the verification procedure. “All individuals who meet the eligibility criteria as per the established standard shall be granted compensation calculated at the rate of Rs 50,000 per annum of service, or a portion thereof.” In lieu of reinstatement, and in complete and final resolution of all claims and demands of the employees in lieu of regularization or absorption, the specified rate of compensation shall be advanced. The payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement was mandated by the Court for LIC to implement “within three months of the date it receives the report of verification from the Committee.”
