APHC010538992022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3545] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL NO: 762/2022 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow the the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order dated 06-05-2022 passed in WP No.12181/2012 and pass Between: 1. THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, REP. BY IT'S ZONAL MANAGER, SAIFABAD, NEAR RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, HYDERABAD (NOW AT 1ST FLOOR, 'JEEVAN JYOTHI BUILDING', OPP. NTR COMPLEX, GOVERNORPET, VIJAYAWADA - 520 002. 2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER,, LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE, TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. MANGALAGIRI VENKATESWARA RAO, S/o Simhadri, Scavanger, R/o H.No.1-36-5/A, Gollagudem Municipal Colony, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT IA NO: 1 OF 2022 2 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay of (69) days in filing the above W.A against the order passed in WP NO. 12181 OF 2012, dated 06-05-2022, otherwise the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and hardship and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased suspend the operation of the order dated 06-05-2022 passed in WP No.12181/2012 and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. J U M V PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P N MURTHY The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL No.762 of 2022 JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order dated 06.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.12181 of 2012. 2. Heard Mr. J.U.M.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. P.N.Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner. 3. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition for convenience. 4. The facts leading to the filing of present writ appeal are as herein under:- The petitioner’s mother Smt. Ramulamma had been working as Sweeper-cum-Cleaner in Tadepalligudem Branch Office of LIC of India till 2001. As she was unable to do that work on account of her old age, on her request, the petitioner was appointed as Sweeper-cum-Cleaner in her place in the year 2001. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 09.09.2002 to the 2nd respondent, requesting to consider his case for appointment to the post of Sweeper-cum-Cleaner on temporary basis at Tadepalligudem Branch Office, as he has already been working as Scavenger 4 on consolidated monthly pay. As there is no response from the 2nd respondent, the petitioner submitted another representation on 03.03.2003. Thereafter, he submitted last representation on dated 11.07.2006, reiterating the same request. The petitioner gave a representation to the National Commission of Scheduled Castes also. On his representation, the National Commission addressed a letter to the 3rd respondent offering remarks. As there is no response, the petitioner also submitted a petition bearing H.R. Case No.4479 of 2008 on 24.11.2008 to the A.P. State Human Rights Commission. In response, the Human Rights Commission sought report from the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent submitted a report stating that the job of cleaning entrusted to the petitioner was absolutely on a daily wage basis, for a duration of one hour a day, which would not constitute a right for seeking any regular employment on the rolls of the Corporation. On the said report, the petitioner filed objections duly enclosing a copy of G.O.Rt.No.1289, dt.09.09.2009. As per the said G.O., salary of Rs.3,900/- per month had been fixed for Class IV employees engaged on contract basis for doing cleaning work in the Municipalities and Municipal Corporations in the State. The Human Rights Commission by an order dated 20.01.2022 disposed of the petitioner’s representation observing that it is appropriate for him to approach his employer for redressal of his grievances. Again, the petitioner submitted several representations to the 2nd respondent reiterating his request. As there is no response from the respondents, the petitioner has constrained to approach this Court by filing the Writ Petition. A counter affidavit has been 5 filed on behalf of the respondents and the petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit. 5. Considering the material available on record and having heard the submissions of the respective counsels, learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order dated 06.05.2022, allowing the writ petition. The observation and the finding of the learned Single Judge is extracted herein as under:- “8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion, in the interest of justice, therespondents No.2 and 3 are directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of Sweeper-cum-Cleaner on the temporary basis in the Branch office of LIC of India, Tadepalligudem, as per the Instructions of Life Insurance Corporation of India Employment ofTemporary Staff Instructions, 1993 and further, the respondents are directed to pay a salary of Rs.3900/- per month to the petitioner for the work of sweeping and cleaning, as per Section 3 of the Minimum Wages. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Against the order of the learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeal is filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the writ petitioner was engaged on hourly basis on the day he was engaged and the payment was made accordingly. As such, the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petition directing the respondents to appoint the writ petitioner to the post of Sweeper-cum-Cleaner on temporary basis and the same is contrary to Instructions II(b) of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993 which were issued under 6 Regulation 8(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 by exercising powers vested under Section 49(2)(b) and (bb) of Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956. Learned Single Judge also erroneously directed to pay Rs.3,900/- per month to the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants further contends that the petitioner does not accrue any right to seek regular or temporary employment in the Corporation as his services were engaged as part-time purely on daily wage basis and he was engaged for cleaning work for two hours per day and wages were paid only for the days he actually worked. The petitioner was not paid for days of absence or for the holidays of Corporation. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants further contends that G.O.Rt.No.1289, dated 09.09.2009 is applicable for the Class IV employees engaged on contract basis that too in the Municipalities and Municipal Corporations of the State of Andhra Pradesh, whereas the Life Insurance Corporation of India is established by an Act of Parliament and having its separate identity and would be governed by its own rules and regulations and are paying remuneration based on the Labour Laws of the Government of India like the Payment of Wages Act etc., as such the said G.O., is not applicable to the petitioner. With these, learned counsel for the appellants sought to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge by allowing the writ petition. 8. On the other hand, Mr. P.N.Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner would submit that there is no truth in the contention 7 of the appellants that the petitioner was engaged on hourly basis for cleaning work for two hours per day. The petitioner has been working on the whole time basis making available throughout office hours. The petitioner has to clean every day 5 latrines, 5 bathrooms, 10 sinks (wash basins) and 14 urine discharging tubes. Depending on the necessity, the petitioner has to clean them twice or thrice also every day. The petitioner has been attending to other cleaning works as and when necessity arises in the office including gardening work. Altogether, 15 employees have been working in the branch office of Tadepalli Gudem. Apart from the employees, 100 policyholders and others visit the office every day and the petitioner has to necessarily work for the whole day for attending cleaning works. He further contended that the Chairman of the Life Insurance Corporation of India issued the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993 in terms of Sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 8 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 to regulate the employment of Staff in Clause III and Clause IV on temporary basis in the offices of the Corporation. As per these instructions, the petitioner is entitled to seek appointment on temporary basis and as the petitioner already working on temporary basis from 2001, he is entitled for the same wages as are drawn by the regular employee at the minimum of the scale applicable to that post on which his temporary employment is made, as per the procedure provided under these instructions. Relying on these instructions, learned counsel would submit that 8 there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and sought to dismiss this Writ Appeal. 9. Having considered the submissions of the respective counsels and on careful perusal of the material available on record, in our considered view, it is appropriate to extract the relevant instructions of Life Insurance of India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993:- “2. Temporary appointments to Class IV posts: a. Employment of temporary staff in Class IV may be made to the posts of peon, watchman, liftman and sweeper- cum-cleaner and none else. b. the circumstances under which employment of temporary staff in Class IV posts may be made are: i. to raise the number of sub-staff (peons) available in a Branch Office having a sanctioned strength of peons mentioned in column 1 on a particular working day to the level mentioned in column 2 below, on account of absence of regular sub-staff. Branch Office having The level to which on having sanctioned temporary employment strength of Peons. the number of peons in Branch Office may be raised to (1) (2) ______________________ ____________________ 2 2 3 2 4 to 5 3 6 to 7 4 and ii. against vacancies arising out of the absence of regular staff in the posts of watchman, liftman and sweeper-cum-cleaner. V. Procedure for employment:- 2. Employment in Class IV Posts:- a. The panels prepared under the Recruitment Instructions by the Divisional Office will be made available to all the Branch Offices under it. Whenever a need arises for temporary 9 employment, a candidate who is residing in the area of the concerned Branch and who is next in ranking in the panel will be offered temporary employment. If, however, such a candidate is not available for temporary employment or is not willing to accept the temporary employment, the order of ranking may be departed from. b. In the event such an arrangement is not possible, after recording the reasons for the departure from the procedure mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraph, the Sr./Divisional Manager may authorise, in writing, the Sr./Branch Manager to employ temporary staff from among persons who satisfy all the eligibility conditions for recruitment of Class IV staff under the Recruitment Instructions through the local Employment Exchange. c. Where, however, the need is immediate and it is not possible to follow the above procedure the Sr./Branch Manager may, after recording the steps taken to employ temporary staff in accordance with the provisions above, employ temporary staff-from out of the persons available locally, provided such a person satisfies all the eligibility conditions for recruitment of staff to the particular post under the Recruitment Instructions.Since in such appointments neither the procedure prescribed under the Recruitment Instructions is adhered to nor the safeguards in the procedure undersub-para(b) above are available. In order to ensure that the appointments are not only done in a fair manner but are also perceived to be so, the temporary staff so employed should not be the relative of any serving or retired employee of the Corporation Needless to add, the occasion for such employment should be very rare and the duration of such employment should also be very short. 3. Reservation of posts for SC/ST candidates:- The rules for reservation of posts for the SC/ST candidates apply to employment of temporary staff for a period of 45 days or more and are to be complied with scrupulously. IX. Wages and other terms and conditions of service: 1. Wages: A person employed on a temporary basis for a month or more shall be paid the same wages as are drawn by a regular employee at the minimum of the scale applicable to the post on which the temporary employment is made. If the employment is for a period of less than a month, the temporary employee shall be paid wages for each day at the rate of 1/26thof the minimum monthly wages in the scale of pay applicable to the said post, so, however, that the 10 wages payable for a month does not exceed the salary for the month.” 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the instructions extracted herein above, it is clear that whenever the need is immediate and it is not possible to follow the procedure provided under the said rules, the concerned Senior/Branch Manager may,after recording the steps taken to employ temporary staff from out of the persons available locally, provided such a person satisfies all the eligibility conditions for recruitment of staff to the particular post under the Recruitment Instructions. It is also provided in those instructions that the rules for reservation of posts for the SC/ST candidates apply to employment of temporary staff for a period of 45 days or more and are to be complied with scrupulously. 11. Admittedly in the present case, the writ petitioner made a representation to the National Scheduled Caste Commission. However, what was the action taken by the National Scheduled Caste Commission is not known from the material available on record. The Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission, having considered the report of the LIC, opined that the petitioner should approach the concerned authorities of the LIC to submit his request. Even as per the advice of the Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission also, the request of the petitioner remains unanswered. Left with no other option, petitioner approached this Court. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been working as a temporary 11 employee in the respondent-Corporation since 2001 and by following the instructions, 1993 issued by the LIC of India, wherein it is provided that a person employed on a temporary basis for a month or more shall be paid the same wages as are drawn by a regular employee at the minimum of the scale applicable to the post on which the temporary employment is made, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the respondents to pay Rs.3,900/- as salary to the petitioner. This Court cannot brush aside the contention of the petitioner that he has to work for whole day to clean 5 latrines, 5 bathrooms, 10 sinks (wash basins) and 14 urine discharging tubes and depending on the necessity, he has to clean them twice or thrice also every day and he has been attending to other cleaning works as and when necessity arises in the office including gardening work in the absence of any material placed by the appellants to disprove the same. 12. In our considered view, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is strictly as per the Life Insurance of India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993. As such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In view of the same, we are not inclined to interfere into the reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 12 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND __________________________________ JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA Date:16.09.2025 SCS 13 149 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL No.762 of 2022 Dt.16-09-2025 SCS