U Ramulu vs State Of ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2060 Tel

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

              WRIT PETITION No.51 of 2017

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following

relief:

"to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing the service of the petitioner as Clerk cum Bill Collector in the 7th respondent Gram Panchayat duly taking into consideration the length of service of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment duly taking into consideration length of service of the petitioner with all incidental and consequential benefits..."

2. Heard Sri K.Aravind Kumar, learned counsel

representing Sri L.V.S. Nagaraju, learned counsel for

the petitioner and learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Services-II, appearing for respondent

Nos.1 to 6 and Sri P.Kishore Rao, learned Standing

Counsel appearing for respondent No.7.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk-cum-Bill

Collector vide Lr.No.GPL/3/92, dated 15.09.1992 by

the resolution of respondent No.7/gram panchayat

and respondent No.5 issued proceedings enhancing

the salary from time to time through proceedings

dated 19.12.2001 and 22.02.2006. He further

submitted that respondent No.5 issued memo dated

09.11.2008 directing concerned gram panchayat to

submit the list of eligible candidates working in the

gram panchayat before 2000. Pursuant to the said

memo, respondent No.7/gram panchayat submitted

proposal to respondent No.5 stating that the

petitioner is working in respondent No.7/gram

panchayat as a bill collector since 1992. Inspite of the

same, respondents have not considered the claim of

the petitioner in regularising the service of the

petitioner in the post of Clerk-cum-Bill Collector. In

support of his claim, learned counsel for the

petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by this

Court in W.P.No.27217 of 2017 dated 19.09.2017

stating that the petitioner is entitled for regularisation

of the service on the ground that he completed more

than five years of service as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated

22.04.1994, and also relied upon the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs Uma

Devi 1.

4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits

that the petitioner is not entitled to regularise his

services in the post of Clerk-cum-Bill Collector and

the respondent No.7/gram panchayat is paying

minimum wages as per the G.O.Ms.No.859,

Panchayat Raj, dated 30.08.1977 and G.O.Ms.No.69,

PR&RD, dated 29.02.2000 as fixed by the District

Collector, Ranga Reddy district/respondent No.4 and

respondent No.7 is not the competent authority to

regularise the services of the petitioner. He further

submits that during the pendency of the writ petition

respondent No.7 gram panchayat converted as a

municipality, Hayatnagar.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made

by the respective parties and after perusal of the

material available on record it is undisputed fact that

2006(4) SCC 1

the petitioner is working as Clerk-cum-Bill Collector

in respondent No.7/gram panchayat pursuant to the

resolution passed by the said gram panchayat and

paying minimum wages attached attached to the said

post. Respondent No.7/gram panchayat submitted

proposal to respondent No.5 wherein, it is specifically

mentioned that the petitioner appointed in

respondent No.7/gram panchayat on 15.09.1992 and

till date the respondent authorities have not taken

any decision.

6. In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed

of, permitting the petitioner to submit a

representation by enclosing all the documents to the

concerned authorities within a period of two(02)

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

On such representation, the authorities are directed

to consider the claim of the petitioner, duly taking

into consideration the length of service rendered by

the petitioner in respondent No.7/gram panchayat

and also the principle laid down in Uma Devi's

case(supra) and pass appropriate orders in

accordance with law within a period of three(03)

months from thereafter.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No

costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

_______________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J

Dated:06-09-2023 Smk