Telangana High Court
The Chief Executive Officer vs P.Sayanna on 23 November, 2021
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, A.Rajasheker Reddy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT APPEAL Nos.439, 445, 446, 449, 450, 451, 454, 455 and
464 of 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
Regard being had to the controversy involved in the
aforesaid cases, they were heard together and are being
decided by a common order.
The facts of W.A.No.439 of 2019 are reproduced as
under:
The present W.A.No.439 of 2019 is arising out of order
dated 22.02.2019 passed in W.P.No.3644 of 2019 by the
learned Single Judge.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that a writ
petition was preferred by the respondents/writ petitioners
working on the post of Sweepers since 1970s and 1980s being
aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the employer in not
considering/regularizing their cases in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 by taking into account the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of B. Srinivasulu vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation in Civil
Appeal No.6318 of 2015, dated 17.08.2015 and also orders
passed by this Court in an identical case i.e, W.P.No.33936 of
2011 and batch, dated 02.05.2018.
A simple prayer was made by the learned counsel
appearing for the writ petitioners before the learned Single
Judge that the cases of the writ petitioners be considered for
regularisation keeping in view the judgment delivered in
W.P.No.47828 of 2018, dated 30.01.2019 in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. The learned Single Judge
has simply directed the employer to consider the cases of the
writ petitioners keeping in view G.O.Ms.No.212, dated
22.04.1994 and the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of B.Srinivasulu (supra), however,
has not directed regularization at any point of time. It is a
direction to consider and pass appropriate order in
accordance with law. The relevant portion of the order passed
by the learned Single Judge is reproduced as under:
"The learned Government Pleader for Services
appearing for the respondents, in principle, has not
disputed about the applicability of judgment dated
30.01.2019 rendered by this Court in W.P.No.47828 of
2018, however, he has pointed out that petitioner No.33 is
aged about 69 years and hence her case cannot be
considered for regularisation of services as she has attained
the age of superannuation and contends that the writ
petition as against the said petitioner may be dismissed,
while allowing the writ petition in respect of other
petitioners.
This Court, having considered the rival submissions
made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of
the considered view that since all the petitioners are
working with the respondents since 1970s and 1980s and
they are fully eligible and qualified for regularization of their
services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, the
contention of the learned Government Pleader that the
above said petitioner i.e., petitioner No.33 has attained the
age of superannuation and hence she is not entitled for
regularisation of services cannot be accepted as legally
sustainable, because of inaction of the respondents to apply
the terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 in respect of
said writ petitioner i.e., petitioner No.33, though the said
G.O. was issued way back in 1994, the services of the said
writ petitioner could not be regularised. Therefore, the writ
petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to
consider the cases of all the petitioners, including petitioner
No.33, for regularisation of their services as Sweepers,
irrespective of the fact that the petitioners have crossed the
age of 60 years or below the age of 60 years, strictly in
terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 and also by
taking into account the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in B. SRINIVASULU's case (supra) and also
the orders passed in W.P.No.33936 of 2011 and batch,
dated 02.05.2018. It is made clear that the whole exercise
shall be completed within a reasonable period, preferably
within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
With the above observations, the writ petition is
disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
in this writ petition shall stand closed."
In the considered opinion of this Court, as the order has
been passed only to consider the cases of the writ petitioners
in accordance with law, keeping in view G.O.Ms.No.212,
dated 22.04.1994 and the judgment delivered in the case of
B.Srinivasulu (supra), this Court does not find any reason to
interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The admission is declined.
Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ
appeals shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
__________________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
______________________________
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J
23.11.2021
ES
