THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.36550 of 2014
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking to set aside the impugned proceedings No.266/Admn.IV-2/2011, dated 16-04-2013 issued by the second respondent and consequently to hold that the petitioner is entitled for regularization of her services with retrospective effect from 26.02.1998 with all consequential benefits.
2) The case of the petitioner is that she passed M.A. English and fully qualified and eligible for being appointed as a Lecturer in English. During the year 1987-88, she was appointed as a part-time lecturer in Sarojini Naidu Vanitha Maha Vidyalaya i.e. third respondent herein and worked there till February, 1998, and later she was appointed as a Part-time Lecturer in English in Sri Padmavathi Mahila Kalasala, Saidabad, and worked from 25.09.1988 to 31.03.1990. Subsequently, in the year 1990, again she was re- appointed in third respondent College and continued to work in the same college till the date of filing of the Writ Petition. It is further averred that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.302, Education Department, dated 23.08.1991, for appointment of adhoc and part time lecturers and junior lecturers working in private Aided Colleges/Junior Colleges by following eligibility criteria and selection procedure prescribed therein through Selection Committee constituted therein. As per the said orders, all the lecturers/junior 2 lecturers working in private Aided Colleges, who possess the prescribed qualification and have put in 2 ½ years of service or more as part time lecturers and continuing in service on the last date of instruction of the academic year 1990-91 and serving on the date of proceedings to be issued by the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education concerned to the Principal of Private colleges calling for the information of part time lecturers, are eligible for the posts of Lecturers/Junior Lecturers in Private Degree/Junior Colleges. It is the further case of the petitioner that she was eligible for regularization of her services as lecturer in English in third respondent College, as she has satisfied the conditions stipulated in the said G.O. including that of completing 2 ½ years of service and working on the said date. However, the proposal forwarded by the third respondent for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.302, dated 23.08.1991, was rejected vide proceedings in R.C. No.102/PC- III.4/94, dated 06.07.1996, on the ground that she has not put in the required service of 2 ½ years as contemplated under G.O. Ms.No.302, dated 23.08.1991. Against the said rejection order, the petitioner has filed W.P. No.14118 of 1996 before this Court and after considering the entire material on record including the subsequent orders issued for regularization of part time lecturers/Joint lecturers in G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997, this Court has allowed the said writ petition vide order dated 08.06.1998 directing the respondents to 3 consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of her services as a Lecturer in English and the said orders have been confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.1165 of 1998 and attained finality. However, the second respondent again issued proceedings in Rc.No.3056/PC.3-2/96, dated 28.08.1998 rejecting the case of the petitioner for regularization on the ground of shortfall of 63 days. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has again approached this Court by way of filing W.P. No.15197 of 2000 challenging the rejection order dated 28.08.1998. This Court vide order dated 08.07.2005 disposed of W.P. No.15197 of 2000 directing the second respondent to look into the matter afresh after giving due opportunity to the petitioner to prove that she worked in Sri Padmavathi Mahila Kalasala for 63 days apart from the record already produced by her and then pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the order of this Court, dated 08.07.2005, the Government has issued G.O.Rt.No.889, Higher Education, dated 31.10.2005, by giving the benefit of doubt regarding 63 days service rendered by the petitioner in Sri Padmavathi Mahila Kalasala and accordingly, it was found that the petitioner has rendered the total service of 609 days during the relevant period i.e. prior to 25.11.1993, as such, satisfied the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997 and accordingly directed the authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner as Lecturer in English against the existing aided vacancy from the date of issue of 4 the said order, treating it as a special case. Accordingly, the services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f.31.10.2005 as Lecturer in English in Aided post in third respondent College. Thereafter, the petitioner has made a representation to the second respondent on 31.01.2008 requesting to give notional benefit from 26.02.1998 on par with other lecturers whose services were regularized on 26.02.1998 vide G.O.Ms. No.328 dated 25.10.1997 and the same was rejected vide impugned order, dated 16.04.2013. Hence, this Writ Petition.
3) Heard Sri D. Balakishan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.
4) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the cases of similarly situated persons were considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B. Srinivasulu v. Nellore Municipal Corporation 1. The said judgment was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in The State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Raja Rao 2 and the same was implemented by the respondents vide Memo No.573/225/A3/ PC.III/1997, dated 01.09.1997, for retrospective regularization of services of the petitioner therein and submits that the said judgment squarely applies to the instant case. Learned counsel further contends that the services of the similarly situated persons viz., Sri D. Anji Reddy 1 Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015, dt.17.08.2015 2 WP No.8201 of 2016,dated 17.03.2016 5 and Smt. D. Shobhana who are juniors to the petitioner, have been regularized on 26.02.1998 and submits that number of cases were considered and further the common order dated 20.11.2018 passed in W.P. No.20691 of 2012 & batch were implemented by the authorities vide Memo No.1251/A/2019-12, dated 07.06.2023 by regularizing the services of the petitioners therein retrospectively and by granting 8/16 scales under Automatic Advancement Scheme from the date of their initial appointment as Assistant Professor and Assistant Civil Surgeon and also counted their services from the date of initial appointment to 01.04.1990 i.e. date of regularization of their services for the purpose of pensionary benefits and prayed to pass appropriate orders.
5) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader while reiterating the counter averments submits that services of the petitioner were regularized vide G.O.Rt.No.889, dated 31.10.2005, prospectively in the cadre of Lecturer in English against an existing vacancy, treating it as a special case, and the same was accepted by the petitioner. Without challenging the same, after a lapse of 9 years, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking retrospective regularization with consequential benefits, which cannot be countenanced. It is further contended that the representation of the petitioner dated 28.01.2011 was considered and rejected by the Government vide Memo No.2265/CE.II-2/2010 dated 13.10.2012 stating that 6 regularization of her services with retrospective effect i.e. 26.02.1998 on notional basis is not feasible of acceptance and again through proceedings No.266/Admn-IV-2/2011, dated 16.04.2013, rejection orders were passed by the second respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization of her services with retrospective effect i.e. from 26.02.1998.
6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the respective counsel.
7) A perusal of the record discloses that the first rejection order stated to have been passed by the respondents on 13.10.2012 is not marked to the petitioner. It seems to be an internal correspondence between the Government and respondent No.2. In rejection order dated 13.10.2012, nowhere there is an indication to the effect that it is served on the petitioner. Therefore, the plea of the respondents that the representation submitted by the petitioner was already rejected by the authorities in the year 2012 itself and again in the year 2013, cannot be countenanced.
8) A perusal of the material on record further discloses that the services of Sri D. Anji Reddy and Smt. D. Shobhana, who are admittedly juniors to the petitioner, have been regularized with retrospective effect, however, the petitioner was discriminated and not extended the said benefit.
7
9) In this context, it is apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in B. Srinivasulu's case (referred supra), wherein it is held as under:
" In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' services be regularized with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC".
10) Following the above said proposition of law, the Division Bench of this Court in M. Raja Rao's case (referred supra) has held as under:
"On the above analysis, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the authorities concerned to extend the benefit of B.SRINIVASULU to the employees in this batch of cases by reckoning their services from the date of completion of five years in service, on or before 25.11.1993, for the purposes of their pension and pensionary benefits. They shall however not be entitled to actual monetary benefits for the said period, in the form of arrears of pay or allowances."
11) In view of the above settled proposition of law, the Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned proceedings No.266/ Admn.IV-2/2011, dated 16-04-2013 issued by the second respondent and directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner retrospectively from 26.02.1998 on par with similarly situated persons viz., Sri Anji Reddy and Smt. Shobhana for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits only. However, it is made 8 clear that the petitioner is not entitled to actual monetary benefits for the said period in the form of arrears of pay or allowances.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
____________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J Date : 16-10-2023.
sur