G.Rajamallaiah Died As Per Lrs vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 1594 Tel

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

                   WRIT PETITION No.23167 of 2020

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s:-

''... to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing/absorbing the services of the petitioner in the post of Sweeper in the 6th respondent School on par with similarly placed employees is arbitrary, illegal, irregular, against to the principles of natural justice, equity fair play and unconstitutional and is violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents herein to regularize the services of the petitioner as Sweeper with effect from the date on which the petitioner have completed 5/10 years service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 20.02.1994 read with G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 23.07.1997 by paying the minimum time scales of pay on par with similarly situated persons on par with regular counter parts discharging the same type of duties and functions and to pass such other order or orders ...''

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially

appointed as part time employee on 29.10.1984 in Upper

Primary School, Vakole of Koheda Mandal in P.S. Husanabad

of Karimnagar District. He completed eleven (11) years of

service as part-time Sweeper but till date he has been

discharging the duties of a full time Sweeper and being paid

meager amount per month. He submits that the respondents

are not regularizing his services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212,

dated 20.02.1994 while regularizing the services of other

similarly situated persons who were appointed subsequent to

the petitioner. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

4. Counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4 stating that

the petitioner was appointed by the then Block Development

Officer vide proceedings No.E1/183/84, dated 29.10.1984 as

a part time Sweeper. The petitioner was under the control of

respondent No.6, who is not under the administrative control

of this answering respondent. The Government introduced

G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 20.04.1994 for regularization of

services of daily wage workers and G.O.Ms.No.112 dated

23.07.1997 for regularization of services of part time workers.

5. The services of persons appointed on daily wage basis is

still continuing as on 25.11.1993 having completed a

continuous minimum period of five (5) years on or before

25.11.1993 and their services shall be regularized in

substantive vacancies subject to fulfilment of the conditions

of education, rule of reservation, age, limits etc. The services

of persons appointed on part time basis, who worked

continuously for a minimum period of ten (10) years are

continuing as on 25.11.1993 on the date on which the A.P.

(Regularization of Appointments to Public Services and

Rationalization of Staff Pattern and pay structure) Act, 1994

(Act 2/1994) came into force and shall be regularized by the

appointing authorities subject to the fulfilment of conditions

of clear vacancy, possessing requisite qualifications, within

the age limit as on the date of appointment and following the

rule of reservation etc.

6. The petitioner being a part time sweeper is not covered

by G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 for regularization of his

services. The case of petitioner also does not fall under

G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 23.07.1997 and since the petitioner is

appointed on 29.10.1984 and as he does not possess

minimum period of ten (10) years of service as on 25.11.1993

on the date on which the Act 2/1994 came into force to

consider the services of the petitioner for regularization as

stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 23.07.1997, those cases of

part time sweepers would be considered, who are having

minimum 10 years of continuous service as on 25.11.1993 as

stipulated in the G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 23.07.1997 subject to

complying the conditions therein.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the

decisions of this Court in "State of Punjab and others Vs.

Jagjith Singh and others" in Civil Appeal No.213 of 2013

dated 26.10.2016 and "State of Karnataka and others Vs.

Umadevi and others" in Appeal (Civil) No. 3595-3612 of

1999 dated 10.04.2006.

8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Government Pleader for Services-II.

9. A perusal of docket proceedings shows that the

petitioner died on 22.01.2022 and legal representatives of the

petitioner viz., petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are brought on record vide

Order dated 14.02.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2022.

10. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the writ

petitioner relied on the decision reported in 2015 (1) Decisions

today (SC) (NRC) 243 and "District Collector/Chairperson &

others Vs. M.L. Singh & Others 1", in Civil Appeal No.6318

of 2015 (arising out of SLP (C) No.12432/2014, dated

17.08.2015. He further relied on the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.213 of 2013 dated

26.10.2016 and prayed to consider his case for regularization

of service as a Sweeper with effect from the date mentioned

supra and since the writ petitioner died the legal

representatives of the deceased petitioner may be extended all

the consequential benefits.

11. It is an admitted fact that writ petitioner served the

respondents from 29.10.1984. At this point of time taking

plea that the 6th respondent is not competent to appoint the

petitioner is inadmissible. In view of the service rendered by

the petitioner as a Sweeper whether be it part time or a full

time employee the services of the petitioner ought to have

been regularised as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 20.02.1994. It

has to be seen that in pursuance of the said G.O., the writ

petitioner had completed 10 years of service as a part time

Sweeper from 29.10.1984 but till date discharging the duties

as a full time Sweeper. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of

2009 (8) SCC 480

decisions held that the adhoc employees are entitled to have

the minimum time scale of pay.

12. G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 20.02.1994 does not specify on

the aspect of regularization of the services of either part time

or full time employees and the said G.O. is silent. Therefore,

the respondents ought to have regularized the services of the

deceased employee in terms of the said G.O. Hence, the

petitioner is entitled to consequential benefits.

13. Having regard to the submissions made by learned

counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, this Court is

of the view that the case of the petitioner ought to have been

considered for regularization on par with other similarly

placed persons. The services of the petitioner in the post of

Sweeper in respondent No.6-School are deemed to have been

regularised on par with similarly placed employees in terms of

G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 20.02.1994 read with G.O.Ms.No.112

dated 23.07.1997 and entitled for paying minimum time

scales of pay on par with counter parts discharging same type

of duties and functions since, the petitioner has put in more

than five (5) years of service as on 20.02.1994 as per

G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 20.02.1994.

14. Since, the legal heirs of the writ petitioner were already

brought on record, they shall be entitled for monetary

benefits accrued to the petitioner.

15. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider

the request and pay/release the entitled benefits to the legal

heirs of the deceased petitioner keeping in view the service

rendered by him from the year, 1984.

16. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed

of. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall

stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL 12.04.2023 ESP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

W.P.No.23167 of 2020

Dated:12.04.2023

ESP