Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Between vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 8 August, 2024
APHC010182512021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 10613/2021
Between:
V. Veera Lakshmi, and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. K SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION (AP)
2. P VIVEK The Court made the following:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-
"... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent Authorities in not considering for absorption of the petitioners' services in aided retiremental/existing vacancies from the date of their initial appointments as the petitioners are working for the last 5 to 16 years and in not extending the similar benefits of various G.Os and recent G.O.Ms.No.12, Higher Education (CE-A2) Department, dated 10.03.2021 issued as per the Common Judgment passed in W.A.No.263 of 2019 and batch, dated 31.07.2020 and G.O.Ms.No.18, Higher Education (C.E.A2) Department, dated 2 15.04.2021 and G.O.Ms.No.12, School Education (IE) Department, dated 24.02.2021 and issuing G.Os on the basis of pressure or orders of this Hon'ble Court, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional and violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities to absorb/regularisation of the petitioners' service in grant in aid posts with all consequential benefits from the date of petitioners initial appointments by extending the similar benefit in terms of G.O.Ms.No.12, Higher Education (CE-A2) Department, dated 10.03.2021 by considering the Common judgment passed in W.A.No.263 of 2019 and batch, dt.31.07.2020 and various G.Os issued by granting exemption from time to time as the petitioners are working for the last 5 to 16 years of service in a retire mental aided/existing vacancies...."
2. Heard Sri K.Satynarayana Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education, appearing for the respondents.
3. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter is squarely covered by an order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11766 of 2021, dated 12.07.2024, and hence, requests this Court to pass similar order in this petition also. The operative portion of the said order is as follows:
"Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, while directing the respondents to absorb the petitioners in the clear sanctioned grant-in-aid posts with all consequential benefits as per rules existed, within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs."
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that respondent No.2 has filed counter affidavit denying all the allegations made in the petition. She further submits that the Management of the 4th respondent-college has appointed the petitioner purely 3 on temporary/part time basis on a consolidated pay without any paper notification and without following any selection procedure and without any duly constituted selection committee, without notifying the vacancies to the employment exchange, without having clear sanctioned aided vacancies and without possessing minimum requisite qualifications at the time of appointment. The salaries are being paid by the Management funds and further, neither permission was accorded by the government for their appointment nor salaries were paid by the government. Hence, the question of absorption does not arise in respect of service of the petitioner. She further submits that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, part time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any sanctioned post and there cannot be any permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees as held. Part-time temporary employees in a Government run institution cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposed to allow the writ petition and prays to dismiss the same.
5. On hearing the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon perusing the entire material available on record, this Court deems fit to allow the present writ petition in terms of the above said order. 4
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 12.07.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.11766 of 2021. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. The Registry is directed to attach a copy of the order passed in W.P.No.11766 of 2021, dated 12.07.2024 to this order.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J BMS