The Ap State Housing Corporation ... vs Y.Dayanand
2022 Latest Caselaw 807 Tel

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                     AND
    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI


               WRIT APPEAL No.1070 of 2007

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



      The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated

26.02.2007 passed in W.P.No.5400 of 1997.

      The facts of the case reveal that the respondent-employee

a physically handicapped person belonging to Scheduled Caste

community was appointed on the post of attender-cum-

watchman. It is an undisputed fact that his name was

forwarded by the employment exchange on a request made by

the employer. However, he was appointed only for a period of

89 days with a fixed salary of Rs.700/- per month. In spite of

the fact that large number of employees were regularized and he

was not regularized, he came up before this Court by filing a

writ petition. A ground was taken by the employee before the

learned Single Judge that in identical circumstances a writ

petition was preferred by identically placed persons/employees

claiming regularisation i.e., W.P.No.10651 of 1996 and this

Court in the aforesaid case has directed grant of regular pay

scale to the petitioners therein to the posts on which they were

working and thereafter the benefit was granted to identically

placed persons. The employee was claiming a similar benefit.

However, the present appellants came up with a plea that the

writ petitioner/employee was not appointed against a

sanctioned post and his appointment was irregular and

therefore, he is not entitled for any relief whatsoever kind. The

learned Single Judge has considered all the documents on

record and also gone through the request made by the employer

to the employment exchange and also looked into the

appointment order dated 26.09.1992 and held that the

employee is entitled for regularization keeping in view

G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994.

The other important aspect of the case is that during the

pendency of the present writ appeal, the employer-appellants in

their wisdom have conferred the benefit of regularisation to the

respondent-employee by an order dated 28.06.2018. This Court

really fails to understand that if the appointment is irregular as

per the stand of the appellants, what was the necessity for

regularising the employee. In the present case, since the

employee was sponsored by the employment exchange and he is

a physically handicapped person belonging to scheduled caste

and other identically placed persons are regularised, this Court

does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by

the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 21.02.2022 ES