G Jagadishwar vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 4266 Tel

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                         AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

        WRIT APPEAL Nos.520, 521 and 522 OF 2019

COMMON JUDGMENT:     (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     The present Writ Appeals are arising out of a

Common      Order        dated      04.04.2019             passed           in

W.P.Nos.1882, 6404 and 7192 of 2019 by the learned

Single Judge.


     The   facts    of     the       case       reveal        that        the

appellants/petitioners before this Court were appointed

purely on contractual basis as contract supervisors under

the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme/Modified

National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (now Pradhan

Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana) and in the appointment orders,

which are on record, there was a categorical condition

that their services are purely temporary and will be

terminated at any point of time without giving any prior

notice. The appellants/petitioners have enclosed the

appointment orders and the appointment orders reveal

that they were issued in the year 2012. Though an

averment has been made by the appellants/petitioners

that some of them were appointed in 2008 also, but the

documents which are filed along with the writ petition

reveals that some of the appointments are of the year
                                 2




2002. Their services were discontinued from time to time.

Page 129 of the paper book reveals that some of them

were re-engaged on 01.08.2018 (wrongly mentioned as

01.08.2019) and the date of termination mentioned as

31.01.2019. The order was passed on 31.01.2019. The

appellants/petitioners came up before the learned Single

Judge claiming regularisation and had stated that some of

their counterparts have been regularised in the State of

Andhra Pradesh.


     Learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ

petitions after hearing the learned counsel for the parties

directing the State Government to consider the cases of

the appellants/petitioners for engaging them as Assistant

Statistical Officers on tenure basis on the same terms and

conditions, in case there is requirement of work. The

appellants/petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid

Order have approached this Court by filing the writ

appeals. The relevant portion of the Order passed by the

learned Single Judge is reproduced as under:-

          "Learned Government Pleader appearing for the
    respondents had contended that the petitioners were

engaged as part time supervisors only for a limited period of 6 to 9 months and as and when there is work under PMFBY Scheme of Agriculture Department. It is also stated that the petitioners are not having requisite qualifications to hold the post of Assistant Statistical

Officer, which is a zonal post, and the said post is liable to be filled up by Telangana Public Service Commission and that the Telangana Public Service Commission has already issued a recruitment notification inviting applications to fill up the vacant posts of Assistant Statistical Officer and the tenure of the petitioners, who were engaged on tenure basis, has come to an end by 28.01.2019 and they have no right to continue as Assistant Statistical Officers. Learned Government Pleader also contends that whenever a direct recruitee or regular employee is appointed, the temporary employee has no right and he/she has to make way for such regular employees. Learned Government Pleader further contends that when the petitioners are working on tenure basis, the moment their tenure comes to an end, their services would be automatically terminated and the question of their continuation beyond the time prescribed in their appointment orders cannot be considered and the petitioners are not entitled for equal pay for equal work and they are also not entitled for regularization of their services.

This Court, having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that these writ petitions can be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for engaging them as Assistant Statistical Officers on tenure basis on the same terms and conditions as was done in the past, if there is requirement of work by the respondents. However, it is made clear that the petitioners will continue on the same terms and conditions, as was done in the past, till the regular Assistant Statistical Officers are recruited, if there is work available with the respondents, and whenever regular Assistant Statistical Officers are recruited, the petitioners will vacate their posts."

The petitioners are claiming regularisation on the

basis of the Judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Union Public Service Commission v.

Girish Jayanthi Lal Vaghela1, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi 32,

State of Karnataka v. M.L.Kesari3, Nihal Singh v. State of

Punjab4 and Karnataka State Private College Stop-Gap

Lecturers Association v. State of Karnataka5.

This Court has perused the documents on record

and the undisputed facts make it very clear that the

appellants/petitioners were appointed under National

Agriculture Insurance Scheme purely on temporary basis

and it is nobody's case that they have continued

uninterruptedly till date. The documents filed by the

appellants/petitioners make it very clear that they were

engaged and disengaged from time to time and the

documents which are on record terminating their services

dated 31.01.2019 makes it very clear they were

re-engaged on 01.08.2018 (wrongly mentioned as

01.08.2019) and terminated again on 31.01.2019.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the State

Government stating that the post, on which the

2006 (2) SCALE 115

(2006) 4 SCC 1

(2010) 9 SCC 247

(2013) 14 SCC 65

AIR 1992 SC 677

appellants/ petitioners are claiming regularisation, is the

post of Assistant Statistical Officer which is a technical

post and selection process is conducted by the Telangana

State Public Service Commission (TSPSC) keeping in view

the Statutory Rules governing the field known as

'Telangana State Economics and Statistical Subordinate

Service Rules prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.42, dated

11.06.1991. It has been stated by the State Government

that the appellants/petitioners were not engaged in

regular vacancy in the Department and they were engaged

on seasonal basis as and when there was a need for

implementation of Crop Insurance Scheme of Agriculture

Department. It has been further stated that initially some

of the appellants/petitioners were engaged on

contract/part time supervisors in Mandals of

Mahaboobnagar, Karimnagar and Medak Districts on pilot

basis to supervise crop cutting experiments and the

District Collectors were empowered to select and engage

Primary Workers at village level and Supervisors at

Mandal level. It has been further stated that the

appellants/petitioners cannot claim salary at par with the

Assistant Statistical Officer/Mandal Planning and

Statistical Officer and they are not at all doing the same

job and they have been engaged purely on part-time basis

that too for implementation of National Agriculture

Insurance Scheme and therefore, as they have not worked

continuously, the question of granting them the benefit of

Judgment delivered in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagjit

Singh6 does not arise. It has also been stated that regular

Assistant Statistical Officers have already been selected by

Telangana State Public Service Commission after holding

a competent examination and selected candidates have

already been given postings, and therefore, the question of

continuing the services of the casual/part-time employees

without any work in the Department does not arise.

The appellants/petitioners have also filed a reply to

the counter affidavit filed by the State Government and it

has been reiterated that their appointments are regular

appointments and they are entitled for pay scale of

Assistant Statistical Officer. Heavy reliance has been

placed upon the Judgment in the case of Nihal Singh

(supra) and it has been stated that they are getting only

Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) per month

which is a meagre amount.

This Court has carefully gone through the

documents on record and the Judgments referred by the

learned counsel for the parties.

(2017) 1 SCC 148

It is nobody's case that the appellants/petitioners

were appointed against the permanent posts. They were

appointed purely on contract/temporary basis under the

Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana and the contract

period has come to an end. The respondents have

appointed regular persons through the process of

selection conducted by the Telangana State Public Service

Commission and therefore, the question of issuing any

direction to the State Government to grant salary of the

post of Assistant Statistical Officer to backdoor entrants

who have not worked regularly, does not arise. However,

the observation made by the learned Single Judge for

engaging them in case there is a requirement in the

Department does not warrant any interference.

This Court does not find any reason to set aside the

Order passed by the learned Single Judge observing that

regularisation as claimed by the appellants/petitioners

and the payment of salary as claimed by the appellants

cannot be granted in a mechanical manner. The

appellants/petitioners have failed before this Court in

establishing their cases for grant of regular salary as they

were engaged on part-time basis and they have also failed

to demonstrate that they have performed the duties of

Assistant Statistical Officers. No case is made out to

interfere with the well considered Order of the learned

Single Judge.

In the light of the aforesaid, the writ appeals are

dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall

stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

13.12.2021 Pln