V.Rajitha, vs Government Of Telangana, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3177 Tel

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                 WRIT PETITION No.36550 of 2014
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to set aside the impugned

proceedings No.266/Admn.IV-2/2011, dated 16-04-2013 issued by

the second respondent and consequently to hold that the petitioner is

entitled for regularization of her services with retrospective effect from

26.02.1998 with all consequential benefits.

2) The case of the petitioner is that she passed M.A. English and

fully qualified and eligible for being appointed as a Lecturer in

English. During the year 1987-88, she was appointed as a part-time

lecturer in Sarojini Naidu Vanitha Maha Vidyalaya i.e. third

respondent herein and worked there till February, 1998, and later she

was appointed as a Part-time Lecturer in English in Sri Padmavathi

Mahila Kalasala, Saidabad, and worked from 25.09.1988 to

31.03.1990. Subsequently, in the year 1990, again she was re-

appointed in third respondent College and continued to work in the

same college till the date of filing of the Writ Petition. It is further

averred that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.302, Education

Department, dated 23.08.1991, for appointment of adhoc and part

time lecturers and junior lecturers working in private Aided

Colleges/Junior Colleges by following eligibility criteria and selection

procedure prescribed therein through Selection Committee

constituted therein. As per the said orders, all the lecturers/junior

lecturers working in private Aided Colleges, who possess the

prescribed qualification and have put in 2 ½ years of service or more

as part time lecturers and continuing in service on the last date of

instruction of the academic year 1990-91 and serving on the date of

proceedings to be issued by the Regional Joint Director of Higher

Education concerned to the Principal of Private colleges calling for the

information of part time lecturers, are eligible for the posts of

Lecturers/Junior Lecturers in Private Degree/Junior Colleges. It is

the further case of the petitioner that she was eligible for

regularization of her services as lecturer in English in third

respondent College, as she has satisfied the conditions stipulated in

the said G.O. including that of completing 2 ½ years of service and

working on the said date. However, the proposal forwarded by the

third respondent for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.302, dated

23.08.1991, was rejected vide proceedings in R.C. No.102/PC-

III.4/94, dated 06.07.1996, on the ground that she has not put in the

required service of 2 ½ years as contemplated under G.O. Ms.No.302,

dated 23.08.1991. Against the said rejection order, the petitioner has

filed W.P. No.14118 of 1996 before this Court and after considering

the entire material on record including the subsequent orders issued

for regularization of part time lecturers/Joint lecturers in

G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997, this Court has allowed the said

writ petition vide order dated 08.06.1998 directing the respondents to

consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of her services as

a Lecturer in English and the said orders have been confirmed by the

Division Bench in W.A. No.1165 of 1998 and attained finality.

However, the second respondent again issued proceedings in

Rc.No.3056/PC.3-2/96, dated 28.08.1998 rejecting the case of the

petitioner for regularization on the ground of shortfall of 63 days.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has again approached this

Court by way of filing W.P. No.15197 of 2000 challenging the rejection

order dated 28.08.1998. This Court vide order dated 08.07.2005

disposed of W.P. No.15197 of 2000 directing the second respondent to

look into the matter afresh after giving due opportunity to the

petitioner to prove that she worked in Sri Padmavathi Mahila Kalasala

for 63 days apart from the record already produced by her and then

pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the order of this Court, dated

08.07.2005, the Government has issued G.O.Rt.No.889, Higher

Education, dated 31.10.2005, by giving the benefit of doubt regarding

63 days service rendered by the petitioner in Sri Padmavathi Mahila

Kalasala and accordingly, it was found that the petitioner has

rendered the total service of 609 days during the relevant period

i.e. prior to 25.11.1993, as such, satisfied the provisions of

G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997 and accordingly directed the

authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner as Lecturer in

English against the existing aided vacancy from the date of issue of

the said order, treating it as a special case. Accordingly, the services

of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f.31.10.2005 as Lecturer in

English in Aided post in third respondent College. Thereafter, the

petitioner has made a representation to the second respondent on

31.01.2008 requesting to give notional benefit from 26.02.1998 on par

with other lecturers whose services were regularized on 26.02.1998

vide G.O.Ms. No.328 dated 25.10.1997 and the same was rejected

vide impugned order, dated 16.04.2013. Hence, this Writ Petition.

3) Heard Sri D. Balakishan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner,

and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the

respondents.

4) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the cases of

similarly situated persons were considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in B. Srinivasulu v. Nellore Municipal Corporation 1. The said

judgment was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in The State

of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Raja Rao 2 and the same was implemented

by the respondents vide Memo No.573/225/A3/ PC.III/1997, dated

01.09.1997, for retrospective regularization of services of the

petitioner therein and submits that the said judgment squarely

applies to the instant case. Learned counsel further contends that

the services of the similarly situated persons viz., Sri D. Anji Reddy

Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015, dt.17.08.2015

WP No.8201 of 2016,dated 17.03.2016

and Smt. D. Shobhana who are juniors to the petitioner, have been

regularized on 26.02.1998 and submits that number of cases were

considered and further the common order dated 20.11.2018 passed in

W.P. No.20691 of 2012 & batch were implemented by the authorities

vide Memo No.1251/A/2019-12, dated 07.06.2023 by regularizing the

services of the petitioners therein retrospectively and by granting

8/16 scales under Automatic Advancement Scheme from the date of

their initial appointment as Assistant Professor and Assistant Civil

Surgeon and also counted their services from the date of initial

appointment to 01.04.1990 i.e. date of regularization of their services

for the purpose of pensionary benefits and prayed to pass appropriate

orders.

5) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader while reiterating

the counter averments submits that services of the petitioner were

regularized vide G.O.Rt.No.889, dated 31.10.2005, prospectively in

the cadre of Lecturer in English against an existing vacancy, treating

it as a special case, and the same was accepted by the petitioner.

Without challenging the same, after a lapse of 9 years, the petitioner

has filed the present writ petition seeking retrospective regularization

with consequential benefits, which cannot be countenanced. It is

further contended that the representation of the petitioner dated

28.01.2011 was considered and rejected by the Government vide

Memo No.2265/CE.II-2/2010 dated 13.10.2012 stating that

regularization of her services with retrospective effect i.e. 26.02.1998

on notional basis is not feasible of acceptance and again through

proceedings No.266/Admn-IV-2/2011, dated 16.04.2013, rejection

orders were passed by the second respondent rejecting the claim of

the petitioner for regularization of her services with retrospective

effect i.e. from 26.02.1998.

6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the

respective counsel.

7) A perusal of the record discloses that the first rejection order

stated to have been passed by the respondents on 13.10.2012 is not

marked to the petitioner. It seems to be an internal correspondence

between the Government and respondent No.2. In rejection order

dated 13.10.2012, nowhere there is an indication to the effect that it

is served on the petitioner. Therefore, the plea of the respondents

that the representation submitted by the petitioner was already

rejected by the authorities in the year 2012 itself and again in the

year 2013, cannot be countenanced.

8) A perusal of the material on record further discloses that the

services of Sri D. Anji Reddy and Smt. D. Shobhana, who are

admittedly juniors to the petitioner, have been regularized with

retrospective effect, however, the petitioner was discriminated and not

extended the said benefit.

9) In this context, it is apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in B. Srinivasulu's case (referred supra), wherein it is

held as under:

" In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' services be regularized with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC".

10) Following the above said proposition of law, the Division Bench

of this Court in M. Raja Rao's case (referred supra) has held as

under:

"On the above analysis, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the authorities concerned to extend the benefit of B.SRINIVASULU to the employees in this batch of cases by reckoning their services from the date of completion of five years in service, on or before 25.11.1993, for the purposes of their pension and pensionary benefits. They shall however not be entitled to actual monetary benefits for the said period, in the form of arrears of pay or allowances."

11) In view of the above settled proposition of law, the Writ Petition

is disposed of setting aside the impugned proceedings No.266/

Admn.IV-2/2011, dated 16-04-2013 issued by the second respondent

and directing the respondents to regularize the services of the

petitioner retrospectively from 26.02.1998 on par with similarly

situated persons viz., Sri Anji Reddy and Smt. Shobhana for the

purpose of pension and pensionary benefits only. However, it is made

clear that the petitioner is not entitled to actual monetary benefits for

the said period in the form of arrears of pay or allowances.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No

costs.

____________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J Date : 16-10-2023.

sur