Sri.C.Gangaiah, ... vs The Executive Officer, Tirumala ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 805 AP

                                  1



        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND


            WRIT PETITION No.31144 of 2011

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed by 16 petitioners seeking a

Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in

treating the petitioners as NMRs from the dates of their

appointment though they were appointed after going through

the process of selection prescribed for regular appointment

and not extending the benefits of seniority from the dates of

their initial appointment while regularizing the services of

others as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and for

consequential direction to extend the benefit of seniority and

pay scale from the dates of initial appointment.

02. A Counter Affidavit has been filed by the respondent.

03. Heard Sri Ganta Ramarao, learned Senior Counsel,

appearing for the petitioners, and Sri A. Sumanth, learned

Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent TTD.

04. The case of the petitioners as per the averments made

in the affidavit filed along with the Writ Petition is that on

requisition of the respondent/TTD, the employment exchange

sponsored the names of the petitioners along with other

qualified persons for the purpose of considering them for

appointment of Gardeners and Sweepers. After going through

the regular process of selection, the petitioners were

appointed as Gardeners and Sweepers during 1979 and 1980.

05. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Government

of Andhra Pradesh while regularizing the services of all the

NMRs including the petitioners vide G.O.Ms.No.296, Revenue

(Endowments-III) Department, dated 19-04-1988, limited the

benefit of regularization to the date of issue of the respective

Government Orders instead of giving benefit for regularization

from the date of their first engagement as NMRs.

06) During the course of hearing on 10-02-2021, Sri Ganta

Ramarao, learned Senior Counsel, has drawn the attention of

this Court to the judgment rendered by their Lordship Sri

Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy in W.P.No.18939 of 1995 dated

24-10-2006 which was filed as Ex.P.5 in the material papers

and contended that the issue raised in the present Writ

Petition is squarely covered by the said judgment.

07) Sri A. Sumanth, learned Standing Counsel appearing

for the Respondent, vehemently opposed the contention of the

learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the

petitioners in the present Writ Petition stand on a different

footing, and that therefore, the said Judgment of this Court in

W.P.No.18939 of 1995 is not applicable to the present case on

hand.

08) On perusal of the judgment in W.P.No.18939 of 1995, it

appears that the said judgment was passed by following the

judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4096 of 1991

dated 12-11-1997, which was confirmed in W.A.No.727 of

1998, dated 28-04-1998 and the SLP filed against the said

judgment was also dismissed.

09) Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel

and after careful consideration of the material available on

record, this Court do not find any distinction between the

petitioners in the present Writ Petition and the petitioners in

W.P.No.18939 of 1995. In case of both the sets of employees

except the fact that their initial engagement and the date of

appointments are different, there is no distinction that can be

brought about to deny the relief which was already granted to

the petitioners in that Writ Petition. Though the learned

Standing Counsel made strenuous efforts to persuade this

Court to come to the conclusion that the petitioners' stand on

a different footing, this Court is not inclined to accept his

submission.

10) For the aforementioned reasons, this Writ Petition is

allowed in terms of the judgment in W.P.No.18939 of 1995,

dated 24-10-2006. A Writ of Mandamus shall issue to the

respondent directing to regularize the services of the

petitioners from the dates of their initial appointment and

extend all the benefits, pecuniary and otherwise accruing

therefrom. There is no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________ BATTU DEVANAND, J Date: 12-02-2021

eha

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

WRIT PETITION No.31144 of 2011

Dt.12-02-2021

eha