Bikram Singh Kohli vs. Life Insurance Corporation Of India And Ors Chairman

ITEM NO. 42+31

COURT NO.2

SECTION XVI

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 22629-22630/2016

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02/05/2016 in LPA No. 751/2016 02/05/2016 in LPA No. 752/2016 passed by the High Court Of Patna)

BIRENDRA KUMAR AND ANR.

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondent(s)

(with appln. (s) for permission to file additional documents and <pre>interim relief and office report)</pre>

WITH

Signature Not Verified

SLP(C) No. $22987/2016$ (With interim relief and Office Report)

$SLP(C)$ No. 22996/2016 (With interim relief and Office Report)

W.P.(C) No. $13/2017$ (With Office Report)

SLP (C) No.6372-6373/2017 (With appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and <pre>interim relief and office report)</pre>

Date : $27/02/2017$ These petitions were called on for hearing today.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

Date: 2017 03 03<br>16:23:17 IST<br>Reason:	<table> Digitally signed by Petitioner(s)</table>	Mr. V. Shekhar, Sr. Adv.
		Dr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv.
		Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, Adv.
		Mr. Bhaigunath Dubey, Adv.
		Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv.
		Mr. P. Dayal, Adv.

Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, AG Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR Ms. Shruthi Parasa, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

It is submitted by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for India, appearing for the Life Insurance Corporation that after 2014, the likes of the petitioners are not engaged by the Corporation and there is no fresh engagement.

At this juncture, Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel would submit that there are some employees who are continuing in the same job. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is required to file an affidavit stating whether after 2014 anyone has been engaged by fresh contract or anyone is continuing solely because of the term of appointment. To explicate, if anyone has been appointed for a term of three years in the year 2014, it is bound to expire in 2017 and, therefore, he has been allowed to continue.

As far as the petitioners are concerned, the term has come to an end. The singular argument that has been propounded by Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel is that when an appointment is done under the scheme, the Life Insurance Corporation being a corporate welfare sector cannot disengage the petitioners. As has been noticed hereinbefore, when the appointment as such under the scheme has been stopped, the petitioners, as submits Mr. Rohatgi, cannot have claim for the same. Be that as it may, let the affidavit be filed within three weeks hence. Needless to say, apart from what we have been recorded hereinabove, all other contentions are kept open.

List the matter after three weeks.

(Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

2