Telangana High Court
K.Vijayender Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 11 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.No. 15533 of 2022
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus by calling for the records relating to the Proceedings No.289035/LWS/B3/GHMC/2022-117, dated 16.02.2022 issued by the respondent No.4 and declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and to further direct the respondents either to absorb the petitioner in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) or Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority (QQSUDA), in terms of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.6681 of 2003, dated 12.11.2021 and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner is a Diploma holder in Civil Engineering and was appointed as NMR under the respondent No.3 on 01.01.1989 and when the petitioner's services were not regularized even after completion of five years of service, the petitioner and similarly situated persons approached this Court by filing W.P.No.12618 of 1996 and vide orders dated 15.10.1997, this Court was pleased to dispose of the writ 2 TMD,J W.P.No. 15533 of 2022 petition directing the respondent No.1 to accord permission to the Administrator, Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority (QQSUDA) to regularize the services of the petitioner in the post in which petitioner is working and pay appropriate pay scales within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Questioning the said orders, the respondents filed W.A.No.720 of 1998 and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution basing upon the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.272725-27277 of 1995. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.834, MA dt.22.09.1998 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization. The petitioner and similarly situated persons thereafter filed C.C.No.354 of 1998 and while the same was pending, the respondent No.4 Corporation, vide letter dated 20.05.1998, addressed a letter to the Principal Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration to absorb the 110 NMRs working in QQSUDA and thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.588, MA dated 19.12.2000 to absorb the 49 NMRs initially in the Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, as per the Letter No.A2/360/97, dated 29.01.2000 of the Administrator, QQSUDA. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another C.C.No.1380 of 2000 for non-implementation of the orders passed in 3 TMD,J W.P.No. 15533 of 2022 C.C.No.354 of 1998 and vide orders dated 10.07.2001, the said Contempt Case was disposed of with certain directions. It is submitted that the petitioner never sought for transfer from the respondent No.3 to respondent No.4, but on their own, the respondent No.3 had transferred the petitioner to respondent No.4 and that the petitioner is willing to work anywhere even in the parent department i.e., respondent No.3, if petitioner's services are absorbed in the regular vacancy as directed by this Court. It is submitted that at present, there are number of existing vacancies in the respondent No.4 Department, where the petitioner is working at present, but the petitioner's claim has been rejected vide impugned orders dated 16.02.2022 by the respondent No.4 on the sole ground that the previous service rendered by the petitioner in Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority has not been counted as per the condition imposed in G.O.Ms.No.588, MA dated 19.12.2000 and in view of the said alleged condition, the petitioner's service from the year 1989 to 2001 i.e., more than 12 years of service has not been counted for the purpose of regularization. It is submitted that the condition in G.O.Ms.No.588 is applicable only when the petitioner's claims seniority and other attendant benefits, but since the petitioner is not claiming any seniority or 4 TMD,J W.P.No. 15533 of 2022 other attendant benefits to the said service, but he is only claiming the services from 1989 to 2001 to be counted for the purpose of regularization of petitioner services in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi. It is submitted that both Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority as well as the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation have to count the said services for the purpose of regularization, otherwise it amounts to unfair labour practice and the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury and also is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the rejection order dated 16.02.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.834, MA dated 22.09.1998 wherein the claim of the petitioner and others similarly placed persons for regularization was rejected. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings dated 20.05.1998 of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH) where under 110 NMRs working in Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority as Kamatee/Kamatan/ Safaikarmacharies posts were absorbed into MCH to the 5 TMD,J W.P.No. 15533 of 2022 referred letter dated 03.02.1998, as they were surplus staff in various irrigation circles and therefore, it was agreed to absorb the 110 NMRs of Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority in the vacant Kamatee/Kamatan/Safaikarmacharies posts in the scale of Rs.1375-2375 provided the NMR's are willing to perform their duties assigned to the above posts. One of the conditions was that above persons would be accommodated as per their community in the 684 vacant posts of Kamatee/Kamatan/Safaikarmacharies and the balance would be filled up by the persons from the surplus staff of irrigation circles as and when they report for duty and they will be placed in the last rank of the existing employees of the above categories. It is submitted that the Administrator, Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority addressed a letter dated 29.01.2000 to the Special Officer and Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, giving the list of 46 work charged NMRs of Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority for absorption in MCH as per their respective qualifications. It was stated that MCH may utilize some of their services in the Engineering or Town Planning Wing as they were having Technical qualification and that due to acute financial crisis, Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority has not been 6 TMD,J W.P.No. 15533 of 2022 undertaking civil works for the past one year as there are no P.S.Charges earned by the authority and has not been able to pay the wages of these work charged NMRs. In the list of NMRs, the name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No.23. Accordingly, the G.O.Ms.No.588 MA, dated 19.12.2000 was issued, according permission to the Commissioner and Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, to assign 49 work charged NMRs of Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority subject to the following conditions:
(a) the service rendered in Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority by the said NMRs previously shall not be counted in Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad;
(b) the NMRs of Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority so permitted into Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad shall perform the duties and functions as prescribed in Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad i.e., the duties of Kamatees, Kamatans and Safai Karmacharies, etc.;
(c) they shall be paid the salaries from the date of their joining into Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and shall be paid the salary prescribed to NMRs/work-charged employees only;
(d) the Service of the 49 NMRs in Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad shall not count for any other purpose and they shall be sent back to the Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority without any prior notice to them. The Commissioner and Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad shall obtain an undertaking on a Bond Paper to that effect;7
TMD,J W.P.No. 15533 of 2022
(e) the Commissioner and Special Officer shall meet the expenditure on the salaries of 49 NMRs from the funds of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad only.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad on 06.08.2001 stating that while he was working in Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority from 1989, his services were not regularized on the ground that he had not put in five years of service by 25.11.1993 and that he filed W.P.No.12618 of 1996 and by orders dated 15.10.1997, the High Court was pleased to direct the Government to accord permission to the Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority for regularization of services and thereafter, the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.834 MA, dt.22.09.1998 had rejected his case for regularization and therefore, the petitioner filed Contempt Case i.e., C.C.No.354 of 1998. It is submitted that by order dated 14.10.1998, the Court further directed the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner and when the said order was also not implemented, the petitioner filed C.C.No1380 of 2000 and basing on the averments made by the Learned Advocate General that services of the petitioner will be absorbed in the regular posts in the Municipal Corporation of 8 TMD,J W.P.No. 15533 of 2022 Hyderabad, since there is no work in the Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority, this Court had closed the Contempt Case with a direction to the petitioner to report before the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, for absorption in the regular vacancies. Accordingly, the petitioner has reported before the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad for absorption. Pursuant thereto, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, vide proceedings dated 21.08.2001 has admitted the petitioner and others to duty w.e.f. 06.08.2001 subject to the conditions stipulated in the Government Order vide G.O.Ms.No.588, MA & UD (F1) Department, dated 19.12.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6681 of 2003 seeking directions to the respondents No.3 and 4 therein to continue the petitioner in Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, as per the Procs.No.257/B3/LWS/MCH/2001/1290, dated 21.08.2001 in the time scale of pay or to allow the petitioner to continue under the respondent No.4 therein in the minimum time scale of pay as per the Letter No.257/LWS/B1/MCH/98/368, dated 20.05.1998 and this Court had disposed of the writ petition with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of the decision of this Court in W.P.Nos.45949, 46007 of 2018 & also W.P.No.36805 of 2018 9 TMD,J W.P.No. 15533 of 2022 dated 11.10.2018. The entire exercise was directed to be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Pursuant thereto, the respondents have issued a letter dated 16.02.2022 rejecting the case of the petitioner for regularization on the ground that as per undertaking given by the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.588 MA, dated 19.12.2000, his case cannot be considered for regularization. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus while reiterating the above contentions, has submitted that the petitioner is seeking consideration of his past service in Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority for regularization purposes only and not for any other benefits such as backwages.
6. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, however, relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 and stated that the petitioner and others were already surrendered to GHMC and therefore, it is for GHMC to take care of the service related 10 TMD,J W.P.No. 15533 of 2022 issues and respondent No.3 has no say whatsoever in the said matter.
7. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.4, GHMC, it is stated that as per the undertaking given by the petitioner at the time of absorption into GHMC, the earlier services in Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority shall not be considered for any purposes including for regularization of services into the Corporation and further that the petitioner and others have not completed ten years of service in the respondent No.4 Corporation to consider their case for regularization in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi's case and thus, the rejection order is justified by the respondents.
8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioner had earlier worked in Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority and his services were not regularized in the said organization even though his services were absorbed into respondent No.4 Corporation. One of the conditions imposed at the time of absorption is that they will not claim any benefit of service rendered by them in Quli Qutub Shah Urban 11 TMD,J W.P.No. 15533 of 2022 Development Authority. Such condition was imposed not only for his seniority and other benefits, but also for seeking continuity of service in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The petitioner having given willingness voluntarily at the time of absorption into Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, cannot now turn around and submit that his earlier services in Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority should be considered for the purpose of regularization in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi, the services of a person who has completed five years of service can be regularized in an existing vacancy and if the services of the petitioner in earlier organization is to be counted and his services were to be regularized in an existing vacancy of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, there would be other employees of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation whose service conditions would get affected. Therefore, the condition that the petitioner will not claim his earlier service in Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority assumes importance and he can only claim the services for the period during which he has served in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for 12 TMD,J W.P.No. 15533 of 2022 the purpose of all service benefits including regularization of services.
9. However, if the services of the petitioner in GHMC were to be considered, he has been absorbed into services of GHMC from the year 2000 and the petitioner has put in nearly twenty four years of service in GHMC. Thereafter, number of vacancies might have arisen after the petitioner has put in more than ten years of service as required as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi. The petitioner has put in only three years of service in Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority, while he has served in GHMC for nearly twenty four years. Therefore, the respondent No.4 has to take steps for regularization of the services of the petitioner in the vacancies that have arisen after the petitioner satisfied the required number of years of service for regularization of his services. This Court, in earlier round of litigation, had directed the respondents to consider the regularization of the services of the petitioner herein, but the respondents have been giving one or the other reason for denying relief to the petitioner.
13
TMD,J W.P.No. 15533 of 2022
10. Therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondent No.4 to consider the service rendered by the petitioner in its organization from 2000 onwards and consider regularization of his services against the regular vacancy which has arisen after the petitioner has completed ten years of continuous service. The petitioner shall be eligible for all consequential benefits of regularization after his services are regularized.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI Date: 11.03.2024 bak