Monday, 11, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Y.Srinivasulu vs The Telangana Industrial ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 207 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 207 Tel
Judgement Date : 25 January, 2022

Telangana High Court
Y.Srinivasulu vs The Telangana Industrial ... on 25 January, 2022
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
    THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI


               WRIT PETITION NO.12832 OF 2019


                              ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article

226 of the Constitution of India seeking an order or direction more

particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the

records relating to and connected with Proceedings No.1441/PW/

APIIC/96, dt.27.11.2018 of the 1st respondent and to set aside the

same to the extent of direction to regularise the petitioner's services

prospectively with effect from 27.06.2018 instead of regularising the

services of the petitioner on completion of 5 years as on 09.02.1992 in

terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dt.22.04.1994 as arbitrary, illegal and

unsustainable apart from being contrary to the orders passed by this

Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.8324 of 2010 dt.07.11.2017; and

consequently to direct the respondents to regularise the services of the

petitioner as regular employee of the Corporation with effect from

09.02.1992 instead of NMR watchmen with effect from 09.02.1992 as

was done in the case of Sri V.V. Krishna Reddy who is junior to the

petitioner at the relevant point of time with all consequential benefits

including seniority, pay fixation and pensionary benefits and to pass

such other order or orders in the circumstances of the case.

W.P.No.12832 of 2019

2. Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner was appointed

as NMR watchman on 10.02.1987 in the respondent organisation at

Warangal. The petitioner completed his 5 years of service as on

09.01.1992. He made several representations to the respondent

Corporation to regularise his services. However, he was not

regularised, but in fact he was terminated from service with effect

from 01.01.1993. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed I.D.No.35 of 1993

before the Labour Court, Warangal and the Labour Court directed the

respondent Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service as a

regular NMR. Thereafter, the Corporation filed W.P.No.22284 of

1996 before this Court and during the pendency of the Writ Petition,

the petitioner was reinstated into service vide proceedings

dt.05.08.1998. Taking the same into consideration and confirming the

award passed by the Labour Court, this Court dismissed the said Writ

Petition on 08.04.2002. Similarly placed NMRs in the respondent

Corporation approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing

W.P.No.23427 of 1995 and this Court issued a direction to the

respondents to regularise their services in terms of the policy issued

by the State Government vide G.O.Rt.No.212 dt.22.04.1994 and

accordingly, several NMRs are also regularised as regular employees

of the respondent Corporation. The respondent Corporation filed

W.A.No.265 of 1998 and a Division Bench of this Court dismissed

the Writ Appeal and by complying with the directions of the Hon'ble

Court, one Sri V.V.Krishna Reddy, junior of the petitioner, was W.P.No.12832 of 2019

regularised in the Corporation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212

dt.22.04.1994. On 29.11.2004, the respondent Corporation rejected

the petitioner's case on the ground that he was not engaged by the

respondent Corporation during the period from 01.01.1993 to

10.06.1996. The petitioner was therefore constrained to file

W.P.No.8324 of 2010 and this Court vide its judgment dt.07.11.2017

passed final orders holding that the petitioner is entitled to

regularisation since he was deemed to be in service as on 01.01.1993.

Consequent thereto, the respondents have passed orders dt.27.11.2018

regularising the services of the petitioner with effect from 27.06.2018

in the time scale of Rs.15,460 - 47,330/-. Seeking regularisation of his

service from the date on which his junior colleague Mr. V.V. Krishna

Reddy has been regularised on 25.11.1993, the petitioner has filed the

present Writ Petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.S.V. Subba Rao,

reiterated the submissions made in the accompanying affidavit and

submitted that since the oral termination of the petitioner by the

respondent organisation has been set aside by the Hon'ble Court, he is

deemed to be continuously in service from the date of his appointment

and therefore he ought to have been regularised with effect from the

date when he has completed 5 years of service or at least from the date

on which his junior has been regularised, i.e., 25.11.1993.

W.P.No.12832 of 2019

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy,

however supported the order of regularisation from 27.06.2018.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on

record, this Court finds that the writ petitioner has been in continuous

service till his oral termination on 01.01.1993. The said oral

termination order has been set aside and has been declared to be

illegal. By virtue of the pronouncement by the Hon'ble Court, the

petitioner is deemed to be reinstated into service with continuity of

service and that this aspect also has been confirmed by the Hon'ble

High Court in W.P.No.22284 of 1996. Once the Hon'ble High Court

has held that the petitioner is in continuous service and is entitled for

regularisation, it is illegal on the part of the respondent Corporation to

be regularising the services of the petitioner with effect from

27.11.2018. It is undisputed that the petitioner is entitled to

regularisation of services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dt.22.04.1994.

Therefore, the respondents are directed to regularise the services of

the petitioner with effect from 25.11.1993 with all consequential

benefits, i.e., the date on which the petitioner's junior's services have

been regularised, and pay the difference of wages and other benefits,

if any, to the petitioner within a period of 120 days from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order, with interest at 8% per annum from the

date of his entitlement to the date of payment.

6. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.

W.P.No.12832 of 2019

7. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition

shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

Date: 25.01.2022 Svv

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter