Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M. Thimmaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 November, 2024
APHC010042612020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 2603/2020
Between:
M. Thimmaiah and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. P LAKSHMANA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP)
The Court made the following Order:
This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking the following relief:
"....to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the
action of the respondent in not regularizing the services of the
petitioners in terms of the Honble Supreme Court Judgment in
the case of Amarkanth Rayi Vs State of Bihar 2015 (8) SCC 265
the petitioners are falling within e Keeption carved out in Uma
Devi, (3) 2006 4 SCC 1, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable,
unconstitutional and it amounts to violation of Articles 14, 16
21 of Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and
direct the respondents to regularize the services of the
petitioners Honble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of
Amarkanth Rayi Vs State of Bihar 2015 (8) SCC 265 the
petitioners are falling within exception carved out in Uma
Devi, (3) 2006 4 SCC 1 with all consequential benefits...."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were working as helpers
in the College Hostel on daily wages w.e.f., 17.08.1990, 01.11.1990 and
11.08.1991 respectively and they continued till date as last grade servant in
Hostel attached to the 4th respondent-college. The 4th respondent college was
established in the year 1972 as a Residential Degree College by the
Government of Andhra Pradesh. Every student admitted in the college was
paid a stipend of Rs.100/- per month, which later increased to Rs.150/- per
month. The hostel run by the students themselves with a Hostel Advisory
Committee presided by the principal. The appointments of the workers for the
hostel were made by the students and the remuneration were paid to them by
the students through their contribution, as fixed by the Advisory Committee
from time to time and they were not considered as part of the establishment of
the college. The Government vide G.O.Rt.No.1246, Education dated
03.09.1987 issued orders that the 4th respondent college shall be handed over
to the A.P.Residential Educational Institutions Society, Hyderabad for
management thereafter. But the college was not handed over to the Society,
because no grant-in-aid was given by the Government to the Society for its
maintenance. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.2669 Edn. (CE.I) Department,
dated 29.11.1995, the Government ordered to retain the Silver Jubilee
Government College, Kurnool with the Commissioner of Collegiate Education,
for making it as MODEL College and a RESOURCE Centre with high
educational standards. In the year 1998-99, the Government have sanctioned
budget for the Hostel of the College and the wages of the workers were paid
by the Principal from the Budget provisions available with college. Inspite of
clear directions issued by this Court, the services of the workers working in the
Hostel of the 4th respondent college were not considered for regularization, as
there are no sanctioned posts available for Hostel workers. The Government
in G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance and Planning Department dated 22.04.1994 have
evolved a scheme for regularization of employees working on Daily
Wages/NMR basis. The 1st respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.38, dated 28.06.2022,
regularized five workers, leaving the petitioners. Keeping in view of the totality
of circumstances, there is a clear vacancy in the hostel, the petitioners are
seeking direction to regularize the services of the petitioner, but the
respondents are not regularizing the services of the petitioners. Aggrieved by
the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Heard Mr.P.Lakshmana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, who
appeared virtually through video conferencing and Ms.P.Sudeepthi, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education, for the respondents.
4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the
contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Amarkanth Rayi Vs. State of Bihar1, the petitioners are falling
2015 (8) SCC 265
within exception carved out in Umadevi's2 case, and hence, the petitioners
are entitled for regularization with all consequential benefits to hold the posts
of Last Servant in terms of last grade service rules. Therefore, learned
counsel requests this Court to issue appropriate directions to the respondents
to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
Judgment stated supra and pass appropriate orders.
5. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently
opposed for grant of any relief in the present writ petition and prayed to
dismiss the same.
6. On considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon
perusing the material on record, as the respondents have not filed any counter
till today, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition, with a direction to
the respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioners, in the light of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Amarkanth Rayi's case (supra1) and pass
appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of four (04)
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs.
(3) 2006 4 SCC 1
8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________
Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J
BMS
