Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

B.Kameswaraiah, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its ... on 30 August, 2024

APHC010772402015
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                   AT AMARAVATI                 [3333]
                            (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                   FRIDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST
                     TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                 PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

                       WRIT PETITION NO: 23106/2015

Between:

B.kameswaraiah, and Others                            ...PETITIONER(S)

                                   AND

State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal Secretary ...RESPONDENT(S)
and Others

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

  1. K SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

  1. ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI(SC FOR TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI
     DEVASTHANAMS)

  2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)

  3. A K JAYAPRAKASH RAO

The Court made the following:
                                                2


ORDER:

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

"... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declare the Memo No.37287/Endts. III/A2/2011-5, dated 15.9.2012 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in rejecting the cases of Petitioners for regularization of their services with retrospective effect as illegal, arbitrary and unjust (ii) declare the Proceedings Roc.No.Edn.5/1582/Ser.III/2004, dated 17.3.2012 issued by the 2nd Respondent - Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams as illegal, arbitrary and unjust; and (iii) declare that the Petitioners are entitled to regularization from their juniors whose services were regularized by the Respondents herein w.e.f. 19.10.1994 and for consequential benefits..."

2. Heard Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners

and learned Government Pleader for Endowments for the respondent No.1

and Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TTD for the

respondent No.2.

3. Heard and perused the material on record.

4. The case of the petitioners is that they have joined in services of the

respondent No.2 - Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (in short, "T.T.D") as

NMRs from 1987 to 1993. Thereafter, they have submitted a representation

to the authorities requesting them to regularize their services in the vacancies

available in the respondent No.2 - T.T.D, as respondent No.2 - T.T.D have

regularized the services of the various NMRs working under them by way of

resolutions and also in pursuance of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court

in various writ petitions filed by them. The same was rejected by the Executive

Officer of the respondent No.2 - T.T.D stating that in view of the orders dated

20.12.2011 of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.33489 of

2011, representation dated 09.12.2011 of Sri P.Chenchu Reddy and five

others was examined and found that considering their request for

regularization of services with retrospective effect may not feasible since

services of no Hostel personnel were regularized with retrospective effect.

Thereafter, the respondent No.1 also vide memo No.37287/Endts.III/A2/

2011-5, dated 15.09.2012 has also rejected the request made by the

petitioners for retrospective regularization of their services by upholding the

orders passed by the Executive Officer of the respondent No.2 - T.T.D.

Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed.

5. The respondent No.1 has filed a counter, wherein it is stated that the

Government after examining the matter considered that in the instant case,

the petitioners (individuals) were engaged during the year 1990 and they have

not fulfilled the criteria of five years of continuous service as per

G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance Department, dated 22.04.1994 for regularization with

effect from 06.05.1991. Though the individuals have not fulfilled the conditions

stipulated in the said G.O., their services were regularized by the Government

vide G.O.Ms.No.2500, Revenue Department, dated 20.11.2007 on

humanitarian grounds. Thereafter, they started requesting for regularization

with retrospective effect by quoting certain cases.

6. Whereas, the services of the persons referred by the petitioners in their

representation were regularized with effect from 06.05.1991, since they were

engaged during the period i.e., prior to 31.03.1998 and in the instant case, the

petitioners were engaged during the year 1990. As such, the claim for

retrospective regularization is not maintainable and they are not entitled for

retrospective regularization of their services.

7. The respondent No.2 has also filed a counter in support of their claim,

duly reiterating the facts as stated by the respondent No.1 that as per T.T.D

Board Resolution No.192, dated 03.06.1991 and Resolution No.371, dated

28.09.2011, T.T.D Hostels are being maintained as a separate unit for

seniority, transfers, promotions and compassionate appointment. As per the

said resolutions, it is clear that T.T.D Hostels are clearly separated from T.T.D

General Establishment. Therefore, T.T.D Hostel employees may not be

compared with T.T.D General Establishment employees for the purposes of

seniority etc. It is further stated that in the case of Sri M.Parandhamaiah and

others, who filed W.P.No.18873 of 1994, in view of the orders of this Hon'ble

Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioners were absorbed with

effect from 19.10.1994 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.71, dated 20.01.2001 and their

cases may not be taken as precedence to the present writ petition, especially

in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the effect

of the judgment passed by the High Court shall be treated as limited to the

instant case and will not be a precedent for any case.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a Division Bench

judgment in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. N.

Venkaiah and others1, wherein under similar circumstances duly taking into

consideration that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the issue of

regularization by way of its decision in B. Srinivasulu (supra), the employees

who had completed five years of service on or before 25.11.1993 and whose

services were already regularized with prospective effect cannot be found

faulted with for approaching this Court with some delay so as to seek the

benefit of their past service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 atleast for the limited

purpose of their pension and pensionary benefits. Thereafter, the Hon'ble

Division Bench was pleased to dispose of the writ petitions by directing the

authorities concerned to extend the benefit of B. Srinivasulu (supra) to the

employees by reckoning their services from the date of completion of five

years in service, on or before 25.11.1993, for the purposes of their pension

and pensionary benefits. However, the Hon'ble Division Bench has clarified

that they shall however not be entitled to actual monetary benefits for the said

period, in the form of arrears of pay or allowances.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also brought to the notice of this

Court G.O.Ms.No.283, dated 07.07.2017 issued by the respondent No.1 under

similar circumstances with regard to the employees working under the

respondent No.2-Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, wherein a similar relief

was granted as under:-

2018 (4) ALT 6 (D.B.)

"3. Government after careful consideration of the matter here by permit the E.O. TTD for regularization of the services of Sri M.Parameswara Reddy, Attender and 35 others as indicated in the Annexure, notionally with effect from 19.10.1994 instead of

10.10.2007 on par with Sri N. Babu Rao and other Hostel Workers for counting of service purely for pension fixation purpose, duly following the prescribed procedure in the matter."

10. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has

seriously opposed for the same and stated that the judgment relied by the

learned counsel for the petitioners reported in 2018 (4) ALT 6 (D.B.) of the

Division Bench is not applicable to the case of the petitioners, in view of the

fact that the services of the petitioners before the learned Division Bench were

not regularized inspite of their being vacancies. But in the present case, their

services could not be regularized as there are no clear vacancies to regularize

their services. But however, their services were regularized in the year 2007

and hence they cannot seek any relief as sought by them with retrospective

effect.

11. However, this Court keeping in mind that the petitioners are not seeking

for any financial/monetary benefit by duly seeking retrospective regularization.