HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.51 of 2017
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking 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 respondents in not regularizing the service of the petitioner as Clerk cum Bill Collector in the 7th respondent Gram Panchayat duly taking into consideration the length of service of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment duly taking into consideration length of service of the petitioner with all incidental and consequential benefits..."
2. Heard Sri K.Aravind Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri L.V.S. Nagaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6 and Sri P.Kishore Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.7.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk-cum-Bill Collector vide Lr.No.GPL/3/92, dated 15.09.1992 by 2 the resolution of respondent No.7/gram panchayat and respondent No.5 issued proceedings enhancing the salary from time to time through proceedings dated 19.12.2001 and 22.02.2006. He further submitted that respondent No.5 issued memo dated 09.11.2008 directing concerned gram panchayat to submit the list of eligible candidates working in the gram panchayat before 2000. Pursuant to the said memo, respondent No.7/gram panchayat submitted proposal to respondent No.5 stating that the petitioner is working in respondent No.7/gram panchayat as a bill collector since 1992. Inspite of the same, respondents have not considered the claim of the petitioner in regularising the service of the petitioner in the post of Clerk-cum-Bill Collector. In support of his claim, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.27217 of 2017 dated 19.09.2017 stating that the petitioner is entitled for regularisation of the service on the ground that he completed more than five years of service as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 3 22.04.1994, and also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi 1.
4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner is not entitled to regularise his services in the post of Clerk-cum-Bill Collector and the respondent No.7/gram panchayat is paying minimum wages as per the G.O.Ms.No.859, Panchayat Raj, dated 30.08.1977 and G.O.Ms.No.69, PR&RD, dated 29.02.2000 as fixed by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy district/respondent No.4 and respondent No.7 is not the competent authority to regularise the services of the petitioner. He further submits that during the pendency of the writ petition respondent No.7 gram panchayat converted as a municipality, Hayatnagar.
5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record it is undisputed fact that 1 2006(4) SCC 1 4 the petitioner is working as Clerk-cum-Bill Collector in respondent No.7/gram panchayat pursuant to the resolution passed by the said gram panchayat and paying minimum wages attached attached to the said post. Respondent No.7/gram panchayat submitted proposal to respondent No.5 wherein, it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner appointed in respondent No.7/gram panchayat on 15.09.1992 and till date the respondent authorities have not taken any decision.
6. In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner to submit a representation by enclosing all the documents to the concerned authorities within a period of two(02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such representation, the authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner, duly taking into consideration the length of service rendered by the petitioner in respondent No.7/gram panchayat and also the principle laid down in Uma Devi's 5 case(supra) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three(03) months from thereafter.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Dated:06-09-2023 Smk