Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams vs C Chandrasekhar Reddy
2023 Latest Caselaw 4486 AP

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
                      AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

                     I.A.No.2 of 2023
                            in
                    W.A.No.901 of 2023

ORDER:

This Interlocutory Application is filed for suspension of

the order dated 24.07.2023 in Writ Petition No.32197 of 2016.

2) This court has heard Sri S.S.Prasad, Learned Senior

Counsel as instructed by Sri S.N.Chidambaram Sastry,

learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and Sri J.

Sudheer, learned counsel for the respondents.

3) By the impugned order learned single Judge directed

the petitioner-appellant to regularise the services of the writ

petitioners-respondents.

4) Learned senior counsel argued the matter at length. He

contends that the petitioners-appellants are entitled to a stay

because of certain factual and legal errors in the judgment.

He points out that the learned single Judge started with an

erroneous finding that the writ petitioners were working in

"existing sanctioned posts". He contends that even as per the

writ petitioners they were engaged on daily wage basis. In the

counter affidavit the TTD has asserted that they were never

engaged by the TTD; even the written arguments are to the

effect that they were engaged by the petty contractors. He

also points out that the law of the land as settled in the

leading case of State of Karnataka v Umadevi1 case was

not followed. Writ petitioners, according to him, also do not

have the requisite educational qualifications. Therefore,

learned senior counsel submits that the findings of the

learned single Judge are totally erroneous.

5) Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand

submits that the practice adopted by the TTD is

discriminatory and unfair attracting Article 14 of the

Constitution of India. He also submits that periodically and

over years the officers concerned were recommending the

need for regularisation of these particular workers. He relies

upon the recommendations of the draft agenda of 2013

onwards and states that it is very clearly mentioned that the

posts are available. He also points out that the writ

petitioners are working under inhumane conditions in

S.V.Gosamrakshana Shala (Cattle sheds) and although they

(2006) 4 SCC 1

are not appointed to sanctioned posts, they are holding

sanctioned posts. He also points out that they were given

minimum time scale also. Therefore, learned counsel submits

that there is no error in the appeal.

6) After hearing both the learned counsel, this Court

notices that the law on the subject has evolved over the years

and J. Uma Devi case is a leading judgment on the issue.

Prima facie this Court finds that in view of the issues raised in

the counter affidavit filed by the TTD, which clearly talks of

the fact that the writ petitioners did not alleged that they were

selected through a selection process; that they were appointed

to sanctioned vacant posts etc., merit a detailed examination.

Leading judgment of the J. Uma Devi case was cited and also

extracted in the written submissions filed. This was not

adequately answered. It is asserted in the counter that the

petty contractor is paid by a unit rate as prevailing SSR rate

and in turn he may pay the same to the labour he engaged.

Lack of employer-employee relationship is categorically

asserted. The court, in the light of these issues and the law

on the subject, including the judgment of J. Uma Devi case,

this Court is of the opinion that further detailed hearing on

the inherent merits of the matter must be held. It is only

possible in a final hearing. As things stand thus, it is also

admitted that the writ petitioners are getting minimum time

scale. In that view of the matter, this Court holds that the

petitioner-writ appellant is entitled to an interim order as

prayed for.

7) Accordingly, interim order is granted as prayed for,

suspending the judgment of the learned single Judge in

W.P.No.32197 of 2016, dated 24.07.2023. The opinions

expressed are for the purpose of disposal of this Interim

Application only.

8) List the Writ Appeal in its usual course.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J

_________________________________ DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J

Date:25.09.2023.

Ssv