Telangana High Court
G.Venkateshwara Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 18 March, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION No. 22029 of 2020
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the inaction of the respondents in regularizing the services of the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners by absorbing them in the last grade services vacant in the press and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioners have set up a canteen in the Government Central Press under respondent No.1- Department for the press employees since 1984 and claim to be running the same eversince. It is also stated that the cost of the furniture and other expenditure was paid by the Government through subsidy since 1984 and the same is being continued as per Rule 63 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Factories Act, 1950. It is submitted that the canteen is being run with a fond hope of regularizing TMD,J W.P.No.22029 of 2020 2 their services, but, the respondents have not taken any action thereon. It is submitted that thereafter, the Finance Department as well as the Law Department have accepted the contentions of the petitioners and have recommended the regularization of their services. However, no action has been taken by the Government and therefore, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the office memorandum, dated 21.04.2008 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training, whereunder the employees of the canteen setup under the Central Government Departments were directed to be regularized in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others1. He further submitted that in similar circumstances, Delhi High Court in the case of Mohan Singh and others v. Chairman, Railway Board and others in W.P.(C).No.6582 of 2003 has held that the 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 TMD,J W.P.No.22029 of 2020 3 canteen which is being run under the Railways should be treated as Railway canteen and the employees of the said canteen as Railway employees and they shall be eligible for all the benefits.
4. Sri Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for respondents submits that the canteen has been set up by the petitioners as a mutually aided cooperative society and are running it as a business concern and that it was being run by the Department, as claimed by the petitioners. It is submitted that the recommendations of the Finance Department and Law Department were only on sympathetic lines but not as per the eligibility of the petitioners for regularization. It is submitted that the petitioners, being the employees of a mutually aided cooperative society, cannot seek regularization and therefore, the request cannot be accepted.
5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material available on the record, this Court finds that the petitioners themselves have stated that they have been TMD,J W.P.No.22029 of 2020 4 running the canteen in the Government Central Press by forming a cooperative society of A.P. Government Central Press Co-operative Canteen Limited in the year 1984. It is also stated that they have received subsidy from the Government from which they have spent for furniture and other expenditure. Such being the case, it cannot be accepted that the canteen is being run by the Government. The office memorandum as well as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the present case. The office memorandum, which is issued by the Central Government, was to regularize all the qualified persons appointed in the departmental canteens and the judgment in the case of Mohan Singh (supra) is also to treat the unrecognized canteen as recognized i.e., railway canteen and employees of the said canteen as railway employees and thereafter to grant the benefits to the employees. However, these documents will not come to the support of the petitioners as the facts in both the case are distinguishable. Since the petitioners were not working as employees of any canteen, which is being run TMD,J W.P.No.22029 of 2020 5 by the Government, this Court does not find any merit in this Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI Date: 18.03.2024 PRN