Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 31-07-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Nanda Gopal, former temporary employee of Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC).
  • Respondents: LIC represented by the Managing Director (Personal) and the Zonal Manager, Chennai.
  • Petition: Writ petition under Article 226 challenging LIC's paper publication in Dhina Thanthi dated 20‑05‑2011, which called for applications from eligible Class IV temporary employees for absorption as per Supreme Court order in Civil Appeal Nos. 953‑968 of 2005.
  • Petitioner claimed to have rendered 250 days of temporary service (24‑02‑1989 to 27‑06‑1989 and 17‑05‑1992 to 28‑05‑1992) and sought quashing of the advertisement.
  • Respondents contended the petitioner actually worked only 134 days (123 days in the first spell and 11 days in the second) and therefore did not meet the minimum service requirement for absorption.
  • The petitioner relied on an affidavit dated 18‑01‑2011 filed by LIC in the Supreme Court, asserting the scheme was a one‑time measure and unrelated to Civil Appeal No. 6950 of 2009.
  • The court noted that the Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 18‑03‑2015 (Civil Appeal No. 6950), directed LIC to implement the award in Industrial Dispute No. 27 of 1991 (the “Shrivastava Award”).
  • The award required a minimum period of service for temporary/badli/part‑time workers to be eligible for regularisation; the petitioner’s 134 days fell short of this requirement.
  • The court also referenced the 2015 advertisement dated 21‑07‑2015, issued by LIC after the Supreme Court judgment, which invited applications from workers employed between 28‑05‑1985 and 04‑03‑1991; 245 workmen were absorbed.
  • The petitioner did not submit an application under the 2015 advertisement and instead filed the present writ petition, which the court found to be misconceived and without merit.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition (WP No. 16534 of 2013) is dismissed.
  • All connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
  • No order as to costs.

Topics: Legal Dispute, Employment Absorption