Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Challa V.S.K Phani Pavan vs The Chief Executive Officer, on 23 August, 2024
1
APHC010224712022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 13330/2022
Between:
Challa V.s.k Phani Pavan ...PETITIONER
AND
The Chief Executive Officer and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYANA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES IV
2. G SRINIVASULA REDDY (SC FOR ZPP MPP AND GP SERVICES)
The Court made the following:
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
the following relief:
".....to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of
MANDAMUS (a) By declaring the entire action of the respondents particularly the
entire action of the 1strespondent in regularizing the services of the Petitioner and
declaring his probation in the cadre typist w.e.f 14.09.2019 instead of regularizing his
services w.e.f 01.05.2015 i.e., from the date of joining into duty and also declaration
probation on that basis despite of possessing computer course in PGDCA (Post
Graduation Diploma in Computer Applications) i.e., Web designing and Diploma in
System Management and also Msc (Tech) as on the date of appointment as well as
acquiring typewriting English Higher Grade during September 2018 and Telugu
higher grade during September 2019 on the untenable ground that there is delay in
passing higher grade in Telugu as well as in English is, as highly illegal, arbitrary,
unjust, improper, discriminatory, contrary to law laid down by Honble Tribunal in
O.A.No.2201/2014, dated 02.09.2014 r/w Division judgment in WP.No.11321/2019
dated 14.08.2019 and recent judgment in WP No.17966/2020 dated 16.04.2021 of
this Honble Court in the same subject matter including orders of implementation
proceedings issued in e-file No.D4/265728/2019, dated 08.07.2021 of the
1strespondent in favor of colleague employee without reference to earlier
regularization orders issued in Rc.No.D4/284168/2019, dated08.02.2020 of the
1stRespondent;and consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith reconsider the
case of the petitioner in the matter of regularization and declaration of probation in
the cadre of typist w.e.f.his date of joining into duty with all consequential benefits
such as seniority periodical increments without taking account of passing of
Typewriting higher grade in Telugu and English in view of similar relaxation orders
which was granted in favour of certain class of employees vide G.O.Ms.No.116 GA
(Ser.B) Dept dated 29.2.2008 and also petitioner already passed all technical
qualifications apart from possessing of Post Graduation Diploma in Computer
Application Course by the petitioner in view of law laid down by this Honble court in
WP No 11321/2019 dated 14.8.2019 r/w recent orders dated 16.04.2021 in WP No
17966/2020 and order in OA No 2201/2014 dated 2.9.2014 of the erstwhile APAT in
the same subject matter as well as orders passed in favor of colleague employee vide
efile NoD4/265728/2019 dated 08.07.2021 of the 1st respondent without reference to
earlier regularization orders issued in Rc No D4/284168/2019 dated08.02.2020 of the
1St Respondent by duly considering representation dated19.07.2021 of the Petitioner
made to the 1st respondent and to pass ..."
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Typist
vide proceedings No.D4/2438/2014 dated 01-05-2015 of the 1" respondent on
compassionate grounds in the place of his late father. In the said appointment
order a condition is incorporated, which states that he should acquire requisite
qualifications such as Typewriting Higher Grade Telugu and English within the
time frame allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner joined on the same day i.e.,
01.05.2015 itself. It is further stated that, prior to his appointment itself, he
passed computer course in PGDCA (Post Graduation Diploma in Computer
Applications) and other qualifications. Since the appointment, the petitioner is
discharging his duties as Typist on Computer as the respondent organization
are not using typewriting machines including all the officers the Govt. relaxed
acquiring the qualification of Typewriting as well as Shorthand vide
G.O.Ms.No.116 dated 29.02.2008. It is stated that, in this case on hand, the
petitioner is better footing than the above individuals on the ground that as
stated supra, apart from possessing M.Sc. (Tech) as well as web designing
and Diploma in System Management (PGDCA), prior to his appointment as
typist. It is further stated that, in similar circumstances, one K. Suguna was
also appointed as typist on compassionate grounds on conditional basis vide
orders dated 03-08-2016 of the 1st Respondent and when she failed to acquire
such Technical qualifications, she was issued show cause notice vide
proceedings 10-02-2019 proposing to post her in the lower post or discharge
from services in the event of non-producing of technical qualification
certificates. Aggrieved with the said show cause notice dated 22.10.2019 of
the 1st Respondent, the above individual filed WPNo.17966/2020 before this
Hon'ble Court. This Hon'ble Court was allowed the said writ petition directing
the respondents to regularize her services without insisting for passing of
technical qualification of type writing Higher Grade both in English and Telugu.
Accordingly, the services of Smt. K. Suguna was regularized in the cadre of
typist from the date of her joining into duty with all consequential benefits vide
E.File.No.D4/265728/2019 dated 08.07.2021 of CEO, ZP, East Godavari
District, i.e., 1st respondent herein. It is stated that, the 1strespondent also
issued similar show cause notice with same date of proceedings to that of one
K. Suguna. However, she approached this Hon'ble Court in
WPNo:17966/2020, whereas the petitioner submitted explanation to the show
cause notice 22.10.2019 stating that he appeared type writing examination
and results were also announced, declaring, that the petitioner was passed
the same. Reason best known to the 1st respondent, even though the
petitioner is better footing than the K. Suguna, the petitioner services were
regularized with prospective effect, whereas her services were regularized
w.e.f date of her joining into duty. Thus it is clear from the record that the
petitioner is having better meritorious than the above individual but, in the
matter of regularization comes for consideration a step-mother treatment is
shown to the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Counter affidavit of respondents No.1, 2 and 3 have been filed.
While denying the allegations made in the petition inter alia contended that the
petitioner entered into service as Typist on conditional basis on 01.05.2015
and later he acquired Typewriting English Higher Grade during September-
2018 and Telugu Higher Grade during September-2019. As per the provisions
laid down vide G.O.Ms.No.151, GA(Ser.G) Department, dated:22.06.2004, the
services of the individual are regularized from 14.09.2009 which is the date of
acquiring of full qualification for the post of Typist. It is further stated that, the
petitioner has mentioned the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
1989(2) USJ SC 145 and the Judgment in AIR 1997 3558, which mentions
that once the employee is decided by the competent court, the other
identically placed employees should be given the same benefit without any
litigation. In this context, it is again submitted that the case of the petitioner is
different from the case of the petitioners/petitioner-respondents mentioned in
the Writ Petitions W.P.No.11321/2019 and W.P.No.17966/2020 wherein they
were issued a Notice for reversion to lower cadre/removal from service for not
acquiring the requisite qualification within the time frame whereas, the case of
the individual is that his services are already regularized and now he is
seeking for regularization from the date of his initial appointment instead of the
date of acquiring of qualification. So, the petitioner cannot be considered as
identically placed employee. Further, petitioner is claiming the identical
status with the applicants in Ο.Α.Νο.1856/2017 read with W.P.No.11321/2019,
Ο.Α.No.3301/2004, Ο.Α.Νο.2201/2014 and W.P.No.17966/2020 and also that
of the G.O.Ms.No.116, GAD(Ser.B) Department, dated:29.02.2008;
G.O.Rt.No.4428, Fin(Admn.III) Department, dated.21.12.2011 whose cases
are different as that of the present in the present case. The applicants in the
said Petitioners were issued Notices for their reversion to lower post or
termination from service. But, the services of the petitioner are already
regularized as per the existing rules in vogue and he was not issued any
notice. But, he is claiming the same relief as was given in case of the
applicants in the O.As/Writ Petitions mentioned therein. Therefore, it is
submitted that the individual was appointed as Typist on Conditional Basis on
Compassionate Grounds and the condition is that he should acquire the
qualification of Type writing in both Highers in English and Telugu within 2
Years of minimum and 05 Years of Maximum grace period from the date of his
joining into service as ordered in G.O.MS.No.612, GA(Ser.A) Department,
dated.30.10.1991, G.O.MS.No.696, GA(Ser.A) Department,
dated.27.10.1995, G.O.MS.No.60, GA(Ser.A) Department, dated.11.02.1997,
dated. 27.10.1995 and G.O.MS.No.289, GA(Ser.A) Department,
dated.04.08.2000 and that he accepted the condition and issued appointment
Order vide Progs.No.D3/2438/2014, dated 01.05.2015. Accordingly, the
petitioner joined duty on 01.05.2015. As per the existing procedure and
provisions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.151, GA(Ser.G) Department,
dated:22.06.2004, the services of the individual were regularized with effect
from the date of acquiring the qualifications fully i.e., w.e.f.14.09.2009. Now,
he is claiming the relaxation on par with those applicants who have the Court
Cases earlier and the beneficiaries of the Government Orders in specific
cases. For the above reasons, the petitioner case cannot be considered for
regularization of his service from the date of his appointment as Typist and he
is eligible for when acquired the qualification that was already considered by
the respondents. In those circumstances of the case, prayed to dismiss the
writ petition, otherwise, this respondent will suffer irreparable loss and
hardship.
4. Heard Sri S.Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner; Sri G.Srinivasula Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ZPP, MPP;
learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Services-I & IV appearing for the
respondents.
5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the
averments made in the petition, submits that, this matter is squarely covered
by the order of this Court in WP No.17966 of 2020, dated 16.04.2021 followed
by the proceedings of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad,
Kakinada, File No.ZPPEG-DSECOESM.34.2019-SA(ES-D4)-ZPPEG.
Consequently, the petitioner has also made a representation dated
19.07.2021 seeking regularization of his service from the date of his joining
into service but no action has been taken by the respondents so far.
6. Learned counsel further submits that, in similar circumstances, the
Division Bench of the Composite High Court in WP No.831/2002
dated29.01.2004 while allowing said writ petition, the impugned order dated
04.01.2002 discharging the petitioner from service was set aside, wherein
also, the petitioner therein was not acquired necessary technical qualifications
within stipulated period and passed subsequently. He further submits that,
according to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'H.L.Trehan
vs. Union of India1 ', wherein it was held that 'once the case of one employee
is decided by the competent court, the other identically placed employees
should be given the same benefit without any further litigation'; the same view
was expressed by the apex Court in 'K.C. Sharma vs. Union of India 2 '; even
as per G.O.Ms.No.969 (Ser.A) Department dated 27.10.1995, five years grace
period is given to the persons appointed on compassionate grounds; petitioner
is also entitled for similar relaxation which was granted in favour of certain
other employees vide G.O.Ms.No.116 GA (Ser.B) Department dated
29.02.2008.
1989 (2) USJ SC 145
AIR 1997 SC 3588
7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as Typist vide
proceedings No.D4/2438/2014, dated 01.05.2015 in 1st respondent-Zilla Praja
Parishad, on compassionate grounds, in the place of his late father. In the
said appointment order, a condition is incorporated, which states that the
petitioner should acquire requisite qualification such as Typewriting Higher
Grade Telugu and English within the time frame, i.e., he is allowed (02) two
years of minimum and (05) years of maximum grace period from the date of
his joining into service. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner has
appeared for typewriting examinations and in the results the petitioner was
declared as passed.
8. It is pertinent to note that the State Government granted relaxation in
favour of certain class of employees, vide G.O.Ms.No.116 GA (Ser.B)
Department, dated 29.02.2008 having noticed the non-existence of
Typewriting training institutions.
9. It is the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that
G.O.Ms.No.116 dated 29.02.2008 was issued in favour of those persons who
have appointed between 05.03.1987 and 14.07.1998 and that it cannot be
extended to the petitioner.
10. Moreover, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that in similar circumstances this Court in WP No.17966 of 2020 has
directed to regularize the services of the petitioner without insisting for passing
of technical qualification of type writing Higher Grade both in English and
Telugu and accordingly the services of the petitioner therein was regularized
in the cadre of typist from the date of her joining into duty with all
consequential benefits. In the present case, the petitioner also possessing
similar computer certificates including technical certificates such
circumstances regularizing the petitioner services with prospective effect i.e.,
5 months later from the date of acquiring telugu higher grading and
regularizing the services of the above individual with effect from her original
appointment with all consequential benefits by the same authority is nothing
but, illegal and violative of all principles of natural justice.
11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the respondents are
directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for re-regularization of
services in the cadre of Typist w.e.f. his date of joining into duty because of
possessing web designing, diploma in system Management prior to his
appointment and also acquiring technical qualifications subsequent to his
appointment in view of law laid down by this Court in WP No.11321 of 2019
dated 14.8.2019 r/w recent order dated 16.04.2021 in WP No.17966 of 2020,
and order in OA No.2201 of 2014, dated 02.09.2014 of APAT, as well as
proceedings issued in E.File No.D4/265728/2019, dated 8.7.2021 of the 1st
respondent by duly considering the petitioner's representation dated
19.07.2021 submitted to the 1st respondent.
12. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
13. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand
closed.
_________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 23 -08-2024
Gvl
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
Date : 23 .8.2024
Gvl
