THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION No.5301 of 2021
ORDER:
This writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both parties.
2. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the petitioner service from 10.03.1981 to 24.01.2006 and paying the consequential service benefits i.e., fixation of pay, arrears and all attendant service benefits is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the judgment of this Honble Court and blatant violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Consequently direct the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner and to pay consequential benefits thereof i.e., fixation of pay, arrears and attendant benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. Heard Sri A. Jagan, counsel for the petitioner, and the Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents.
4. It has been contended by the petitioner that his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of Farrash during 1980 and that, after undergoing regular selection process, he was appointed as part-time Farrash on 10.03.1981. The petitioner further contended that after rendering a considerable length of service, his services were regularized vide proceedings dated 24.01.2006. The 2 AKS,J W.P.No.5301 of 2021 grievance of the petitioner is that the service rendered by him from 10.03.1981 to 24.01.2006 is not being considered for regularization.
5. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation to the 4th respondent on 22.09.2020 and the 4th respondent has, in turn, submitted the proposal to the 3rd respondent on 03.11.2020. Counsel for the petitioner had further contended that for regularization of the services of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment, the 1st respondent is the competent authority, but the respondents 2 to 5 have not forwarded the proposal to the 1st respondent. Therefore, counsel contended that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services from the date of his initial appointment and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
6. Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner was not appointed on regular basis and the petitioner is rendering only 4 to 5 hours of service in a day. Government Pleader had further contended that the 2nd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit categorically stating that the petitioner is not entitled for regularization of his services from the date of his initial appointment. Government Pleader also contended that let the petitioner submit a representation afresh to the 1st respondent and thereupon, the 1st respondent would consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
3 AKS,J
W.P.No.5301 of 2021
7. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a representation afresh to the 1st respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, furnishing all the details and staking his claim for regularization of his services from the date of his initial appointment. Upon such a representation being received, the 1st respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a reasonable period of time, preferably within eight weeks thereafter.
8. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 30-11-2021 vv