Telangana High Court
S. Venkateshwarlu vs The State Of Telangana on 20 November, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.1957 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the entire action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners in respective posts in which they are working even though they are fully eligible, satisfied criteria laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 53 of its judgment in 2006 (4) SCC (1), despite of their repeated representations/requests is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, colourable exercise of power and contrary to the above judgment reported in 2018 (2) ALD 282 DB r/w recent judgment dated 10.10.2022 in W.P.No.14020 of 2013 and batch while regularizing the similarly situated persons is as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of all principle of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith consider regularization of services of petitioners in respective posts in which the petitioners are working in terms of criteria laid down Para 53 of judgment in 2006 (4) SCC (1) which was considered in Division Bench of this Court reported 2018 (2) ALD 282 DB r/w recent judgment dated 10.10.2022 in W.P.Nos.14020 of 2013 &batch w.e.f. the day on which they completed 5 years of service with all consequential benefits..."
2. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Kata, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner were engaged as daily wage/consolidated employees by the respondents with effect from 01.07.1991, 08.11.1991, 02.05.1995 and 2 PK,J wp_1957_2024 11.05.1994 respectively. Since then they are discharging their duties regularly on par with regular employees against the vacancies available in the respective offices. Learned counsel further submits that duly taking into consideration the long length of service rendered by the petitioners, the then Chairman, DRDA, Nalgonda, issued proceedings No.A1/82/2003, dated 01.11.2008 extending the benefit of Minimum Time Scale of Pay attached to the post hold by them with effect from 01.09.2008. Apart from the above, the petitioners were also extended the benefit of Revised Pay Scales in the years 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020, except the benefit of regularization of their service. Learned counsel further submits that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, wherein it has decided that the services of the persons, who have completed a continuous and minimum period of five years of service and has been continuing, shall be regularized. Pursuant to the said G.O., the Governing body vide proceedings, dated 13.11.1995, also resolved that the services of the employees, who have completed five years of service in the agency, shall be regularized.
3 PK,J wp_1957_2024 Learned counsel further submits that in case of one Smt.G.Amruthamma, employee of DRDA, respondent No.2 issued Memo No.4326/MU.V(1) 2023, dated 25.07.2003 regularizing her services and when it comes to the petitioners, the respondents have not considered their case for regularization though they are seniors to said Amruthamma.
4. Learned counsel also submits that when similar issue fell for consideration before the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in U.V.S.R. Prasad and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Prl.Secretary Municipal Administration & Urban Development Secretariat, Velgapudi, Guntur District [W.P.No.27217 of 2017, dated 19.09.2017], the High Court allowed the writ petition with a direction to the respondents therein to consider regularization of the services of the petitioners therein against the existing vacancies of Work Inspectors and appoint them subject to their satisfying the criteria laid down in para No.53 of the Judgment in State of 4 PK,J wp_1957_2024 Karnataka v. Umadevi1. In such circumstances, the petitioners seek permission of this Court to make a representation before the respondents to consider their cases in terms of the order passed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.27217 of 2017, dated 19.09.2017, within the stipulated time.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II submits that as the said Amruthamma was appointed against the sanctioned vacancy, the respondents were justified in regularizing her services. She further submits that if the petitioners make a representation before the respondents the respondents will consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to make a representation narrating all the facts of the case within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on filing of such representation, the respondents are 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 5 PK,J wp_1957_2024 directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, in the light of orders passed by the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.27217 of 2017, dated 19.09.2017, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Date: 20.11.2024 Note:
Issue C.C in two (2) days.
(B/o) YVL