Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt. S. Jayalakshmi, vs The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, ... on 4 October, 2024
APHC010242132015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 18040/2015
Between:
Smt. S. Jayalakshmi, ...PETITIONER
AND
The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam Tirupati and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. Dr MAJJI SURI BABU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI(SC FOR TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI
DEVASTHANAMS)
2. .
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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature
of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not
regularizing the services of the petitioner herein in the service of the Pt
respondent in accordance with the Judgment in W.P.No. 21410/2001 &
W.P.No34659/2011 which had attained finality after the Writ Appeal and
S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court while regularizing persons who
were appointed after the petitioner herein as discriminatory and illegal and
consequently direct the 1st respondent to regularize the services of the
petitioner herein and to give the petitioner the time scale of pay from the
date given to others with all consequential benefits thereon and pass..."
2. The petitioner herein was initially appointed as NMR in S.G.S.
Arts College Hostel, Tirupati which functions under the TTD Devasthanam, in
the year 1994.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is being
continued as a contract employee on consolidated pay without other benefits,
while on the other hand persons who have approached this Court challenging
the action of the respondents were regularized and were also given timely
benefits.Though the petitioner made several representations to the
respondents for regularization of her services on par with her juniors, no
action was initiated. While the petitioner was working on outsourcing basis,
the 1st respondent in the year 2011 had issued proceedings dated 12.02.2011
directing to extend the time scale of pay to persons who had approached this
Court and that regularization of their services may be considered after
approval from the 2nd respondent. However, the same has not been extended
to the petitioner herein.
3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are
extending timely benefits to the juniors of the petitioner who have approached
this Court, but, the same was denied to the petitioner. Hence the writ petition
is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the
petitioner and to give her the time scale of pay from the date given to others
with all consequential benefits.
4. The 1st respondent herein has filed a counter affidavit denying the
contentions raised by the petitioner and has further stated that the petitioner
has initially worked in SGS Arts College Hostel, Tirupati in the year 1995-96
on daily wage basis and thereafter from the year 1996-97 to 2010, she worked
at SGS Arts College hostel on contract basis. Thereafter, from 16.06.2010 the
petitioner has joined in Sri Venkata Padmavathi Society, Tirupati and has
been working as unskilled outsourcing worker at SGS Arts College hostel,
Tirupati. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner cannot
claim similar relief granted to one B. Chandrababu in W.P.No.21410 of 2001
as the same is challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the said
judgment shall not be treated as precedent. It is further stated that the cases
referred by the petitioner are not applicable to her as the nature of work and
mode of appointments are not similar to that of the cases relied upon by the
petitioner. As such, the claim of the petitioner for regularization is
misconceived and the petitioner has no legal or vested right to claim any
regularization comparing herself with other candidates.
5. Heard Sri. Majji Suri Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri. Anup Koushik Karawadi, learned Standing Counsel for TTD.
6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner
has reiterated the facts as in the writ petition and has further stressed that the
junior of the petitioner by name B. Chandrababu, has filed writ petition vide
W.P.No.21410 of 2001 seeking absorption of his services in the TTD and for
fixing his pay in the time scale of pay on par with regular employees; wherein
he has succeeded to get an order in his favour and thereafter, the
respondents have regularized his services by extending time scale of pay. The
said order was confirmed in the writ appeal by this Court and as well as in the
Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As such, it has attained
finality. Again in the year 2011, the said B. Chandrababu has filed
W.P.No.34659 of 2011 before this Court as he was denied extension of the
time scale; the said person has again succeeded in getting an order in his
favour and was placed in the time scale as per proceedings dated 12.02.2011.
Though the petitioner made several representations to the respondents
requesting to consider her case on par with other candidates, her efforts are of
no avail. The government, vide G.O.Ms.No.2500, Revenue (Endts)
Department, dated 20.11.2007 has issued orders directing the absorption of
69 hostel workers clarifying that Act No.2 of 1994 would not be applicable to
institutions like TTD. As such, the petitioner is also eligible for absorption and
regular time scale of pay and the writ petition is deemed to be allowed.
7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has denied the
averments of the petitioner and has further stated that the orders passed in
favour of the one B. Chandrababu were challenged before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that the orders passed in
favour of B. Chandrababu should not be treated as precedent. The G.Os.,
referred by the petitioner are not applicable to her and may not come under
consideration as the nature of work and mode of appointments are not similar
with the petitioner's case.He further stated that as per the rules in force, there
is no relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent herein and as
such, the question of regularization of her services and extending the
minimum time scale to her would not arise. As such, he requested to dismiss
the writ petition.
8. On a perusal of the material papers filed by the petitioner, this
Court finds that the cases referred by the petitioner and the G.O.Ms.No.2500,
dated 20.11.2007 through which 69 hostel workers were absorbed into TTD,
would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner as the appointments and
the mode of work of the candidates in the cases referred by the petitioner are
completely different when compared to her. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has further relief upon a judgment passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.3661 of
2004 and 32197 of 2016, wherein this Court on 24.07.2023 has passed the
following order:
"55. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed directing the respondent - Tirumala
Tirupathi Devasthanams (TTD), Tirupathi to regularize the services of the
petitioners, taking into consideration the existing vacancies of 128 as on the date
of their appointment which was subsequently enhanced to 209 as well as the
earlier proposals made by TTD for regularizing the services of the petitioners in
the year 2013 (vide note File C1/117/SVGS/TTD/TPT/2013) and 2015(vide Note
File No.C1-282/SVGS/2015, dated 16.11.2015) and on par with similarly situated
employees such as 69 hostel workers and 162 workers of Sri Venkateswara TTD
Forest Workers Welfare Society, whose services were regularized by TTD in
pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.2500 dated 20.11.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.663, dated
30.09.2022 respectively issued by the Government. The said exercise shall be
completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has requested to pass a similar order
even in the present writ petition.
9. However, learned Standing Counsel has brought to the notice of
this Court that the said order was challenged by the respondent devasthanam
vide W.A.Nos.894 and 901 of 2023; wherein a learned Division Bench of this
Court has set-aside the aforesaid order and has passed the following on
29.04.2024:
"64. In that view of the matter, the Writ Appeals, in our considered opinion, are
required to allow in part. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals are allowed in part.
The impugned common order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. Further,
both the writ petitions shall stand partly allowed enabling thereby the petitioners to
submit a comprehensive representation setting out all the particulars of their
employment and address the same to the 2nd respondent and seek the relief
sought for under the writ petitions. If the representations are made within one
month from the date of release of this judgment, the same shall be considered by
the 2nd respondent within an outer limit of three months. In the event no such
representation is made within one month from the date of release of this judgment,
the petitioners would be deprived of this right of making a representation. In the
event the petitioners require more time or extension of the time stipulated herein
above to make the representation, the petitioners shall compulsorily make an
application for extension of time before the lapse of the period of one month as
stipulated hereinabove, failing which they would not be entitled for any extension
of time. There shall be no order as to costs."
10. The learned Standing Counsel has further brought to the notice of
this Court an order dated 27.02.2024 passed by a learned Division Bench of
this Court in W.P.No.23424 of 2020 and batch, wherein under similar
circumstances, candidates holding posts on daily wage basis/NMR and
contractual basis sought claim for regularization on account of long period of
service rendered by them. the petitioners therein claiming that they have been
employed in various posts on daily wage basis/NMR and contractual basis,
have sought regularization of their services on account of the long period of
service rendered by them. The learned Division Bench, after hearing both
sides, has opined that marshalling and commission of facts could be of critical
importance in order to settle the factual parameters of the claims, which the
Courts exercising powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India are ill-
equipped to do. The Court has further observed as under:
"5. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that it would be in
the interest of the party that the matter be relegated to the 2 nd respondent to
adjudicate the claims of the petitioners. The Writ Petitions shall be treated as
representations. The 2nd respondent shall issue notice of hearing to all the
concerned petitioners within one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order and shall thereafter fix the date of hearing and endeavour to complete the
hearing and pass a speaking order and thereby dispose of the claims of the
petitioners within an outer limit of six (6) months.
6. The Writ Petitions stand disposed of accordingly. The 2nd respondent shall
endeavour to dispose of the claims without seeking for any further extension of
time."
11. Referring to the aforesaid order, learned Standing Counsel has
requested this Court to pass a similar order.
12. Accordingly, after considering the submissions of both the
counsel, I am inclined to pass similar order in the present writ petition duly
taking into consideration the decision of the learned Division Bench in the
order dated 27.02.2024 in W.P.No.23424 of 2020 (batch) and also the order in
W.A.Nos.894 and 901 of 2023 dated 29.04.2024.
13. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of and the matter is
relegated to the 1st respondent herein to adjudicate the claim of the petitioner.
The present writ petition shall be treated as representation and the 1st
respondent shall issue notice of hearing to the petitioner herein within a period
of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter,
the 1st respondent shall fix the date of hearing and endeavor to complete the
hearing and pass a speaking order and thereby dispose of the claim of the
petitioner within a period of six (6) months. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petition, shall stand
closed.
________________________
JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
Date:. 10.2024
Gss
