JUDGMENT : Viju Abraham, J. Petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext.P12 order and for a consequential direction to the respondents to assign seniority to the petitioners, and also disburse service benefits by fixing the seniority and the date of appointment with effect from the date of similarly placed persons who are included in the select list prepared pursuant to Ext.P6 notification . 2. Petitioners are presently employed as class IV staff in Life Insurance Corporation who have been appointed pursuant to their successful completion of the selection process for appointment to the post of class IV employees. Prior to this appointment on a regular basis, the petitioners were engaged as class IV staff during various spells from 1996 to 1997. The mode of appointment was to employ for 155 days in one stretch and then to extend the period of such appointments with an artificial breaker in between. Petitioners were all sponsored by the Employment Exchange and were subjected to a selection process as provided in the instructions issued by the Life Insurance Corporation in this regard. When there was an apprehension of termination of service, petitioners approached this Court filing OP No.17156 of 1998. As the said original petition was dismissed an appeal was preferred and the same was allowed as per Ext.P3. In Ext.P3 judgment this Court has issued the following directions. Paragraph 2 of said judgment reads as follows:- “In the above circumstances, since they were worked and they were qualified and also considering their experience, were are of the view that if they apply for the future vacancies, their case also should be considered along with others irrespective of age bar as they have crossed the age bar while they were working in the establishment. In further selection they should also be allowed to compete with other provided their age bar should not be looked into considering their earlier experience and Ext.P3.” As per the said judgment the case of the petitioners was directed to be considered and held that if the petitioners apply for the future vacancies their case will also be considered along with others, irrespective of the age bar as they have crossed the age limit while they were working in the establishment. It was also ordered that in further selection they should also be allowed to compete with others and their age bar should not be looked into considering their earlier experience. Though a specific direction was issued as per Ext.P3 judgment, no action was taken in this regard. Thereupon, the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court again filing WP(C) No.29141 of 2004 which was disposed of as per Ext.P4 judgment, recording the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for LIC that whenever a recruitment is made the petitioners’ claim will be considered in terms of the directions issued in Ext.P3 judgment. Though recruitment instructions are provided laying down the procedure for appointment, those procedures were disregarded and temporary hands were recruited continuously. 3. Similar cases came up for consideration before the Apex Court as Civil Appeal No.953-968 of 2015. Before the Apex Court the LIC took a stand that temporary hands working in the LIC would be subjected to the selection process and would be regularised in service on the basis of their performance in the selection process. Recording the same, as per Ext.P5 judgment the case was disposed of by the Apex Court. The operative portion of the scheme put forward by the LIC as extracted in the judgment reads as follows:- "One time limited examination for those temporary persons who are working in LIC of India for more than five years and who had possessed minimum eligible qualification and age as prescribed at the relevant time of their entry into LIC of India would be considered. For this purpose, LIC of India will hold a limited written examination which will be in the vernacular language with a limited syllabus which will be announced in advance. 5. The successful short listed candidates shall be called for the interview. Such of those persons who are successful in the interview shall be initially appointed and posted anywhere in the respective Zone. 6. Such of those temporary employees who do not apply and or not successful shall cease to be in the employment. It is clarified that those temporary persons who are not governed under these submissions, shall also cease to be in the employment. 7. Those who are recruited shall be governed by the rules as applicable to Class IV employees and they shall not be entitled to claim any other benefit regarding their past service rendered as temporary employees. 8. It is clarified that those temporary persons who are not governed under these submissions, shall also cease to be in the employment. 7. Those who are recruited shall be governed by the rules as applicable to Class IV employees and they shall not be entitled to claim any other benefit regarding their past service rendered as temporary employees. 8. In so far as open market candidates who had appeared in the written test at the relevant time and who were successful in the same shall be called for interview along with temporary employees. Such of those persons who shall be successful in the interview shall be offered appointment and the conditions as applicable to temporary persons in so far as offer of appointment shall be applicable to the open market persons as well." Pursuant to the same, Ext.P6 notification for selection was issued by the LIC. Petitioners contend that Ext.P6 was in negation to the direction of this Court in Ext.P4 judgment and the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 953-968 of 2015 . Petitioners submitted applications in response to Ext.P6 notification. Since there was no response from the 1 st respondent the petitioners approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.16233 of 2011 and an interim order was issued by this Court directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to participate in the selection process which commenced pursuant to Ext.P6 notification. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the said interim order was challenged by the Corporation by filing writ appeal, and the said writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench, and the writ petition filed as WP(C) No.16233 of 2011 was also allowed by the Division Bench. Against the same, an appeal was preferred by the Corporation before the Apex Court, and the Apex Court set aside the common judgment of the Division Bench to the extent it allowed WP(C) No.16233 of 2011 and restored the writ petition for disposal on merits. Thereafter said writ petition was heard and disposed of as per Ext.P7 judgment, the operative portion of which reads as follows:- “6. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that in Ext.P8 notification, the 1st respondent Corporation has come out with the scheme for recruitment of persons to the post of sub staff under the 1st respondent Corporation. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that in Ext.P8 notification, the 1st respondent Corporation has come out with the scheme for recruitment of persons to the post of sub staff under the 1st respondent Corporation. No doubt, the scheme envisages a recruitment through a selection process from among a particular category of temporary employees namely, those who were working in the Corporation as on 18.01.2011 and who completed five years of service as on that date. It is also not in dispute that the said notification was brought out pursuant to the undertaking given by the 1 st respondent Corporation before the Supreme Court, as evidenced by Ext.P7 order of the Supreme Court. The issue that arises in the instance case, however, is whether the 1 st respondent Corporation could have excluded the petitioners from a consideration for the post of sub staff while bringing out Ext.P8 notification. It has to be noted that, by virtue of Exts.P4 and P5 judgments of this Court, which have attained finality, the 1st respondent was obliged to consider the candidature of the petitioners for future vacancies that arose to the post of sub staff under the 1st respondent Corporation, I do not think it is open to the 1 st respondent Corporation to bring out a notification inviting only a particular category of temporary employees, to the exclusion of the petitioners, for consideration for appointment to the post of sub staff under the 1st respondent Corporation. Exts.P4 and P5 judgments of this Court, which were rendered inter partes between the petitioners and the 1 st respondent Corporation, had the effect of conferring certain rights on the petitioners, and corresponding obligations on the 1 st respondent Corporation, which could not have been ignored by the 1 st respondent Corporation while issuing Ext.P8 noti my view, the exclusion of the petitioners from a consideration under Ext.P8 notification would tantamount to ignoring the undertaking of the 1 st respondent Corporation before this Court in Exts.P4 and P5 judgments and therefore cannot be legally countenanced. 7. 7. While on the subject, I must also deal with the contention of counsel for the 1st respondent Corporation that Ext.P8 is only one in a series of measures, that are contemplated by the respondent Corporation, to accommodate persons like the petitioners who were employed on temporary basis under the respondent Corporation. It is the stand of the 1st respondent Corporation that Ext.P8 notification is confined to a particular category of temporary employees and as and when a similar notification is issued calling for candidates similarly placed as the petitioners, it would be open to the petitioners to respond to the same. Attractive though the contention may appear as first blush, I cannot, overlook the fact that in Ext.P5 judgment, the statement on behalf of the respondent Corporation that there had been no regular recruitment to the post of sub staff under the respondent Corporation since 1993, was recorded by this Court. If that be the case, then, it is obvious that Ext.P8 is the first step by the respondent Corporation thereafter, for appointing persons to the post of sub staff under the respondent Corporation. Ext.P8 is dated pursuant to which the petitioners could be 20.5.2011 more than 18 years after the last recruitment process. In the backdrop of the said fact, I do not find the stand of the respondent Corporation, that there would be further notifications akin to Ext.P8 notification, accommodated to future vacancies arising to the post of sub staff under the respondent Corporation, to be worthy of any credence. The petitioners have waited sufficiently long for an opportunity to be considered for appointment to the post of sub staff under the respondent Corporation and it would be both inequitable as well as unfair to deny the petitioners an opportunity to realise their aspirations, through a participation in the selection process pursuant to Ext.P8 notification. Accordingly, I allow the writ petition by declaring that the petitioners are entitled to participate in the selection process pursuant to Ext. P8 notification. Accordingly, I allow the writ petition by declaring that the petitioners are entitled to participate in the selection process pursuant to Ext. P8 notification. Considering the fact that the petitioners have already participated in the written test and in the interview that was held, the respondents are directed to declare the results of the petitioners at the written test and interview and consider them along with the other candidates, for the post of sub staff under the respondent Corporation, based on their performance and by offering them the age relaxation that was envisaged in Exts.P4 and P5 judgments of this Court.” An appeal was preferred against Ext.P7, and the Division Bench as per Ext.P8 judgment in WA No.1966 of 2014 dismissed the writ appeal confirming Ext.P7. Though Ext.P8 was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No.14685 of 2015, the same was dismissed by the Apex Court. Petitioners would submit that Exts.P7 and P8 declared the right of the petitioners for appointment to vacancies which existed at the time of issuance of Ext.P6 notification. But the appointment of the petitioners were delayed citing the reason that the appeal before the Division Bench was pending consideration, and therefore it is contended that they were entitled to be appointed with effect from the date when persons similarly situated were appointed. But overlooking the same, petitioners were appointed only with effect from 08.01.2018 as evident from Exts.P9 to P9(c) orders of appointment. Thereupon petitioners submitted Ext.P10 representation seeking appointment with effect from the date on which similarly situated persons were appointed pursuant to Ext.P6 notification. Since no orders were passed on Ext.P10, petitioners again approached this Court filing WP(C) No.31271 of 2019 which was disposed of as per Ext.P11 judgment directing the competent authority to take a decision on Ext.P10 representation. Now Ext.P12 order has been issued in compliance with the direction in Ext.P11 rejecting, the claim of the petitioners. Petitioners would submit that since their entitlement has already been declared by Exts.P7 and P8 judgment, they ought to have been appointed with effect from the date on which persons similarly situated were appointed. It is in the said circumstance that petitioners have approached this Court filing the above writ petition. 5. Petitioners would submit that since their entitlement has already been declared by Exts.P7 and P8 judgment, they ought to have been appointed with effect from the date on which persons similarly situated were appointed. It is in the said circumstance that petitioners have approached this Court filing the above writ petition. 5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Life Insurance Corporation mainly contending on the basis of Regulation No.13 of LIC of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960 that the “commencement of service” as defined therein shall be deemed to commence from the working day on which an employee report for duty in an appointment covered by the Regulation at the place and time intimated to him by the appointing authority. On the basis of the same, the learned Standing Counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation would contend that they can claim seniority only from the date on which they were appointed. Therefore, the request of the petitioners seeking appointment with retrospective effect cannot be considered and the petitioners have absolutely no right for raising such a claim. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court the learned Standing Counsel has produced copy of the rank list along with a memo dated 11.08.2025. 6. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides. 7. Admittedly, the claim of the petitioners was considered by this Court in Ext.P3 judgment, wherein a specific direction was issued to the effect that if the petitioners are applying for future vacancies their case should also be considered along with others irrespective of the age bar, as they have crossed the age limit while they were working in the establishment. Further, the LIC has undertaken before this Court as evident from Ext.P4 judgment that whenever a recruitment is made, the petitioners’ claim will be considered in terms of the direction issued in Ext.P3 judgment. But while issuing Ext.P6 notification for appointment to the post of Peon, a rider was added to the effect that only those employees who have at least five years of service in the temporary post could apply. But while issuing Ext.P6 notification for appointment to the post of Peon, a rider was added to the effect that only those employees who have at least five years of service in the temporary post could apply. But it is to be noted that in Ext.P3 judgment there is a specific direction that their claim should be considered along with others, wherein future selections are notified, in respect to the age limit and in Ext.P4 judgment the Life Insurance Corporation has undertaken that the claim of the petitioners will be considered whenever a recruitment is made. But it is overlooking the said direction in Ext.P3 and the undertaking given by the Life Insurance Corporation in Ext.P4 judgment that Ext.P6 notification was issued. By an interim order issued by this Court in WP(C) No.16233 of 2011 the petitioners were permitted to appear for the examination and they have duly appeared. In Ext.P7 judgment the contention raised by the Life Insurance Corporation that the Apex Court in Ext.P5 has only directed to conduct one time limited examination for those persons temporary working in the LIC for more than five years alone and that the petitioners who have not completed the five years of service are ineligible, was repelled by this Court holding that Exts.P3 and P4 judgments are inter partes which has become final, and allowed the writ petition as per Ext.P7 judgment declaring that the petitioners are entitled to participate in the selection process pursuant to Ext.P8 notification (Ext.P6 herein) and directed to declare their results and to consider them along with other candidates, based on their performance. The said finding was upheld by the Division Bench in Ext.P8 and the SLP filed against the same was also dismissed. Therefore, the findings in Ext.P7 judgment that the Life Insurance Corporation is bound by the directions in Exts.P3 and P4 judgments, and that the direction to the Life Insurance Corporation in Ext.P7 to consider the claim of the petitioners along with other candidates for the post of sub staff under the respondent Corporation has become final. 8. The delay in the matter of appointment overlooking their seniority in the rank list, which is produced by the respondent Corporation along with a memo dated 11.08.2025, was only due to the delay on the part of the Life Insurance Corporation. 8. The delay in the matter of appointment overlooking their seniority in the rank list, which is produced by the respondent Corporation along with a memo dated 11.08.2025, was only due to the delay on the part of the Life Insurance Corporation. The Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Jayakrishnaraj G. [2024 KHC Online 7196] has held that if a Government servant is arbitrarily denied the promotion, that will amount to acknowledging arbitrariness on the part of the Department or Government as the case may be and merely because the person is a Government servant governed by statutory provision they cannot be denied Constitutional protection against arbitrariness. In the light of the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Jayakrishnaraj ’s case cited supra that a Government servant cannot be denied Constitutional protection on the basis of statutory provision and that the Constitutional principles under Article 14 will override statutory provision, the rejection of the claim of the petitioners for retrospective date of appointment merely relying on Regulation No.13 of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960 cannot be accepted and the Corporation is duty bound to consider the claim of the petitioners for seniority based on their rank in the select list, subject of course, to the policy of reservation, if any. 9. Another aspect to be noted is that this Court will not be justified in issuing a positive direction to fix their seniority with effect from the date of their immediate juniors who were appointed as class IV employees pursuant to Ext.P6 notification as the persons who were granted appointment from the select list are not made parties in this writ petition. However the Department is bound to consider the claim of the petitioners for fixation of seniority on the basis of the respective rank in the select list after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and other affected parties strictly, in accordance with the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment which directed that the claim of the petitioners shall be considered along with other candidates based on their performance in the written test and interview pursuant to Ext.P6 notification and also the observation made herein as above. 10. 10. Accordingly Ext.P12 is set aside with a consequential direction to the 2 nd respondent/competent authority to consider the claim of the petitioners for assignment of seniority and other service benefits by fixing their seniority and date of appointment with effect from the date on which similarly placed persons where included in the select list (copy produced along with memo dated 11.08.2025) pursuant to Ext.P6 notification based on their rank in the select list and as per the direction in Ext.P7 judgment, and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and any other affected parties. A decision in this regard shall be taken and communicated to the petitioners within an outer limit of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. With the above said direction the writ petition is disposed of.