IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No :20138 of 1999 Between: Shiak Sandhani, S/o Gaffoor, R/o Behind Koteswara Talkies, Kandukur, Praskam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Life Insurance Corporation, Rep.by its Senior Divisional Manger, Divisional Office, L.I.C. of India, Nellore. 2 The Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India, Kandukur. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ , order or direction, particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to regularise the petitioner's services as Security Guard/Night Watchman and use to pay the regularised pay as being paid to the regular employees, and pass such other and further orders to meet the ends of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.T.S.RAYALU Counsel for the Respondents : MR.M.V.SURESH The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize his service as Security Guard/Night Watchman. 2. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as sub-staﬀ in a branch of the Life Insurance Corporation of India at Kandukur, by an order, dated 17.09.1990 as a temporary staﬀ on a basic salary of Rs.815/- per month and all other usual allowances. On the ground that though he was appointed on temporary basis, but as he has completed more than 240 days of service, he seeks directions for regularization of his service. 3. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the respondents, it is stated that the appointments in the respondent- Insurance Corporation are governed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staﬀ) Regulations, 1960. Regulation 8(1) of the said Regulations empowers the authorities to employ persons on temporary basis in Class III or Class IV services, subject to certain conditions. It is further stated that under Regulation 8(2), a person who is appointed on temporary basis shall, by reason only of such appointment, is not entitled for absorption. In that view of the matter, it is stated by the respondents in their counter aﬃdavit that merely because the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days, he is not entitled for regularization. 4. Though the petitioner seeks directions for regularization on the ground that he has completed 240 days of service, but there is no such scheme in the Regulations of the respondent-Corporation. In that view of the matter, as the petitioner was not appointed in any regular vacancy as per the recruitment regulations, he cannot seek any directions by way of Mandamus, for regularization of his service. It is also not known whether at the time of appointment of petitioner, there exists any regular vacancy, against which, the petitioner can claim absorption. Be that as it may. As it is stated that the petitioner was appointed in 1990, and is continued as such, I dispose of this writ petition, directing that whenever the vacancies arise and recruitment process is taken up for sub-staﬀ, the claim of petitioner may also be considered along with all other eligible candidates. Such consideration shall be keeping in mind the service rendered by the petitioner in the respondent- organization. This also will not preclude the respondents to continue the petitioner as a temporary sub-staﬀ, so long as work exists in the respondent- Corporation at its branch at Kandukur, or in any other branch. 5. Subject to above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 11th November 2008 ajr