Telangana High Court
A. Rajaiah, vs The Kakatiya Medical College, on 1 December, 2022
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili, Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Writ Appeal Nos.850 of 2011 & 199 of 2012
COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per Hon'ble Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
Since both these Writ Appeals arose out of same
order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in
Writ Petition No.16796 of 2010, dated 10.06.2011 and also
the issue raised in these Writ Appeals is one and the same,
they are being disposed of by way of this common order.
2. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of learned Additional Advocate-
General, for the appellants in both the Writ Appeals, and
Ms.Vasudha Nagaraj, learned counsel for the respondents,
in Writ Appeal No.850 of 2011and Mr. Ch. Vidyasagar,
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
Ms. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the appellants in
W.A.No.199 of 2012.
3. For convenience, the facts in Writ Appeal No.850 of
2011 are discussed hereunder.
::2:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_850_2011&199_2012
4. Learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant
contended that respondents herein were employed with the
Hostel which is maintained by the Kakatiya Medical
College, Warangal; the respondents have raised a dispute
before the Conciliation Officer seeking regularization of
their services; when the conciliation talks were failed, the
Conciliation Officer has submitted a failure report to the
appropriate Government; and the appropriate Government
was pleased to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court (for short, 'the Tribunal') under
Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and
the same was numbered as I.D.No.38 of 2007.
5. Learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant
further contended that the Tribunal had examined the case
of the respondents in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated
22.04.1994; vide order dated 15.12.2008, the Tribunal was
pleased to pass an award in favour of the respondents by
directing the appellant to regularize the services of
respondents if necessary, by creating posts in favour of the
respondents; aggrieved by the order passed by the
Tribunal, the appellants have challenged the said award by
filing Writ Petition No.16796 of 2010 before this Court; vide
::3:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_850_2011&199_2012
order dated 10.06.2011, a learned Single Judge of this
Court was pleased to partly allow the Writ Petition by
setting aside that portion of the award wherein the
Tribunal directed the appellant to create posts for
regularizing the services of the respondents; however, in
respect of regularizing the services of the respondents is
concerned, the learned Single Judge has not interfered
with the award passed by the Tribunal; aggrieved thereby,
Writ Appeal No.850 of 2012 is filed. Further, the counsel
for respondents had also filed Writ Appeal No.199 of 2012
challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge
in Writ Petition No.16796 of 2010, dated 10.06.2011 in
setting aside that portion of the award passed by the
Tribunal with a direction for creation of posts for
regularizing the services of the respondents.
6. Learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant
further contended that the learned Single Judge has
categorically held that existence of clear vacancies is, no
doubt, a condition precedent for regularizing the services of
respondents in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994;
the learned Single Judge ought to have set aside the entire
award passed by the Tribunal in its entirety since as on to-
::4:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_850_2011&199_2012
day, the respondents are not continuing with the
appellants. Therefore, prayed this Court to pass
appropriate orders in the Writ Appeals by setting aside the
order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in
Writ Petition No.16796 of 2010, dated 10.06.2011.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents contended that admittedly the respondents
have worked with the appellant for more than three (03)
decades and their cases, at least, should be considered by
the appellant in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi1.
8. In reply, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the cases of the respondents would be considered in
terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Uma Devi (1 supra), and appropriate orders would be
passed by the appellant in accordance with law.
9. This Court, having considered the rival submissions
made by the parties, is of the considered view that Writ
Appeal No.850 of 2011 can be disposed of by directing the
appellant therein to consider the cases of respondents
1 2006 (4) S.C.C. 1
::5:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_850_2011&199_2012
therein for regularization of their services in terms of law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi
(1 supra) and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable
period of time, preferably within a period of two (02)
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. With these observations, the Writ Appeal No.850 of
2011 is disposed of. No costs.
11. In view of the orders passed in Writ Appeal No.850 of
2011 disposing of the same, no further orders are
necessary to be passed in Writ Appeal No.199 of 2012.
Accordingly, Writ Appeal No.199 of 2012 is closed. No
costs.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if
any in these Writ Appeals, shall stand closed.
__________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Date : 01.12.2022
Ndr
