Rathod Narendrabhai Ukabhai vs Divisional Manager

Name,Service Tenure,Desig.,Working days

Dhameliya

Maheshbhai

Shamjibhai",18.07.88 to 07.10.88,Peon,70

Aalani Maheshbhai

Babubhai",18.07.88 to 07.10.88,Peon,70

Bosmiya Mukesh

Jamnadas",18.07.88 to 07.10.88,Peon,70

Makhvya

Ishvarbhai Kantila",18.07.88 to 07.10.88,Peon,70

Maru Devsibhai

Danabhai",21.02.89 to 13.05.89,Peon,119

Rathod

Narendrabhai

Ukabhai",21.02.89 to 13.05.89,Typist,140

Given the above factual aspects and the position, at this stage, this Court does not consider it apposite to interpose in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It",,,

is the respondent authorities who are expected to first look into the case and the grievance of the petitioners in light of the decision of the Apex Court,,,

as may be applicable to the particular set of facts in respect of the petitioner concerned. For this purpose, it is appropriate to relegate the petitioners to",,,

the authorities by directing them to make representation.,,,

In view of above, the petition is disposed of by issuing following directions,",,,

(i) Each of the petitioners are at liberty to make representation to the respondent â€" Corporation setting out the facts of their respective case on the,,,

basis of which they claim absorption in the service of the Corporation;,,,

(ii) Such representation may be made expeditiously. Learned advocate for the petitioners stated that petitioners would make their respective,,,

representation on or before 31.07.2019;,,,

(iii) Upon such representation is made, the respondent â€" Life Insurance Corporation of India shall act through its competent authority to consider",,,

and decide the representations which may be made by different petitioners in the context of the facts attendant to such petitioner, and in light of the",,,

decision of the Supreme Court in Tamilnadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association (supra);,,,

(iv) Necessary decision in accordance with law and on merits shall be taken by the competent authority of the respondent â€" Corporation within a,,,

period of four months from the date of receipt of representation;,,,

(v) It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of the petitioners for grantability or otherwise of the prayers,,,

which may be made in the representations. It is for the competent authority of the Corporation to look into the facts of the each case and take,,,

appropriate decision. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Direct service is permitted.â€​,,,

3 Perusal of the order passed by this Court, would indicate that the petitioners were terminated by the Life Insurance Corporation in their capacity as",,,

temporary employees they had approached this Court earlier as referred to hereinabove and the Court had directed that their representations be,,,

considered in light of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to in the oral order.,,,

4 Pursuant to the order so passed, the petitioners made representation on 25.07.2019, which has been considered and rejected on 25.11.2019.",,,

5 Perused the impugned order rejecting the representation made by the petitioners. Needless to say that, at the threshold, the Court in the first round",,,

only directed the respondents to consider the representation, however, conscious of the fact that the petitioners were temporary employees under the",,,

Life Insurance Corporation of India, a termination of 1989 cannot now sought to be resurrected by a repeated litigation under the pretext of",,,

representation being rejected which was an order invited from this Court in July 2019. The issue, therefore, of temporary employees who now has",,,

attained the age of 55 and 47 years respectively cannot now be gone into after more than 20 years. On this ground alone, the petitions are dismissed.",,,