Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam vs V Arumunayagam
2023 Latest Caselaw 1335 AP

       HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI

                MAIN CASE No.W.A.No.276 of 2023
                            PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                       Office
                                        ORDER

No   DATE                                                                 Note
02 09.03.2023 DVSS, J & VJP,J

                                  I.A.No.1 of 2023

Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.G.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

The application is filed for suspending the operation of the order dated 06.05.2022. The essential grievance urged by the learned Senior Counsel is that, the learned Single Judge permitted the regularization of the writ petitioner with retrospective affect. Relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1875 of 2022 on 07.03.2022 he states that the date of regularization is a matter to be decided by the employer, keeping in view various factors like nature of work, vacancy, financial condition, suitability of the workers etc. He also urges that, the learned Single Judge does not discuss the contentions raised and passed an order in a cryptic manner. The regularization with retrospective affect will upset the employees, their promotions and other prospects and it Contd...

cannot be granted in such a manner.

In reply, Sri G.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that in earlier cases, the TTD had regularized the employees in similar circumstances. He relies upon G.O.Ms.No.201 dated 02.03.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.1739 dated 23.09.2011, to urge that, in this case a different stand is being taken by the TTD. Therefore, he submits that no stay should be granted.

In the opinion of this Court, the issue raised by the appellants' merit further consideration. Para No.9 of the judgment cited by the learned Senior Counsel lists the various factors that are to be considered before regularization with retrospective date is to be given. At this stage, this Court is not in a position to appreciate whether the situation that existed on 09.03.2011 (G.O.Ms.No.201) or on 23.09.2011 (G.O.Ms.No.1739) is exactly similar to the situation in the appellants' organization as on date. This Court is of the opinion that, the issue merit further consideration on merits. The respondents are also not on the verge of superannuation for any interim order to be passed. Therefore, there shall be interim stay as prayed for. Contd...

For counters, list on 06.04.2023.

_________ DVSS, J

_________ VJP, J

RKS/VNB