Telangana High Court
D. Nymisha And Another vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.No. 43294 of 2022
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a writ of
Certiorari to call for the records relating to issuance of the
impugned proceedings in Memo no.24132/CT.I/2022-1, dated
14.07.2022 and to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary,
unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondents to
regularize the services of the petitioners and absorb their
services in the equivalent posts of Typist existing and available
in the United Nalgonda District in terms of letter
Rc.No.E2/186/2003, dated 03.04.2017 with all consequential
benefits and to grant such other relief and to pass to such other
order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ
petition are that the petitioners have been engaged by the
respondents as Data Entry Operators in the year 1993. It is
submitted that the petitioners were also granted minimum time
scale of pay in the year 2011. It is submitted that vide
Government Memo dated 31.12.2016, the respondent No.1
directed the respondent No.2 to furnish the information for
TMD,J
regularization of the services of the petitioners and consequently
the respondent No.2 has obtained information from the
respondent No.3. Since the petitioners were not considered for
such regularization, they approached this Court by filing
W.P.No.14064 of 2021 and sought similar relief as was granted
to the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6949 & 7008 of 2018, dated
05.03.2018 and vide orders dated 21.12.2021, the Writ Petition
was disposed of directing the respondents therein to consider
the cases of the petitioners for the entire exercise within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the
order. However, the petitioners' representation was rejected vide
orders dated 14.07.2022 and therefore, the present writ petition
has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the
submissions made in the writ affidavit and submitted that the
petitioners have been working since 1993 and there was a
recommendation of the respondent No.3 vide Rc.No.E2/233/
2002, dated 13.03.2002 acknowledging the above facts and also
recommending regularization of the services of the petitioners
on par with the Data Entry Operators working in the
Department. It is submitted that in spite of said
TMD,J
recommendation, the case of the petitioners was not considered.
It is submitted that similarly placed persons who were working
from 1989 to 1992 had approached this Court for regularization
of their services and the Andhra Pradesh Administrative
Tribunal had initially granted relief to the petitioners therein
against which the respondents approached this Court and the
Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the writ petition
has observed that the petitioners therein have completed 20
years of service as Data Entry Operators in various Departments
and in the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in
Nihal Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1, the respondents were
directed to take policy decision for appointment of the petitioners
therein either by absorbing them in equivalent post or by creating
posts for Data Entry Operators on regular basis within a period of
two months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. It
is submitted that thereafter, when the respondents did not
comply with the direction of this Court, a Contempt Case was
filed and it was thereafter that the respondents have decided to
comply with the said directions and accordingly, the Contempt
Case was closed. It is submitted that the only distinguishable
1 (2013) 14 SCC 65
TMD,J
fact between the case of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6949 & 7008
of 2018 and the petitioners herein is that the petitioners therein
have worked as Data Entry Operators on consolidated pay from
the year 1989 to 1992, whereas the petitioners herein are
working from 1993 onwards. It is submitted that though the
bench has observed that the said case cannot be treated as a
precedent for all other cases, the petitioners herein have also
worked for more than 20 years now and therefore, the
respondents should be directed to take a policy decision for
regularization of the services of the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to
G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 26.02.2016, issued by the Government of
Telangana, wherein a policy decision was taken to
absorb/regularize the services of persons appointed on contract
basis against the sanctioned posts in the Government, subject
to the conditions mentioned therein and one of the conditions
was that the eligible persons should be working as on
02.06.2014 i.e., immediately before the formation of Telangana
State and continuing till the date of proposed regularization in
the letter dated 26.02.2016. He submits that the petitioners
satisfy the above conditions and therefore, seeks a direction to
TMD,J
the respondents to consider their case for regularization in
terms of the said G.O.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II,
however, relied upon the averments made in the counter
affidavit and submitted that the case of the petitioners is not
similar to the case of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6949 & 7008 of
2018 and in view of the distinguishable factors, the judgment
cannot be applied to the present case. He also placed reliance
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Government of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. Tamil Nadu
Makkal Nala Paniyalargal and Others 2, for the proposition that
the High Court cannot direct regularization of the services of the
persons when they were appointed on temporary basis. He
placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Narmada
Bachao Andolan and Another 3, and Para 64 therefrom: for the
submissions that the Court should not place reliance upon a
judgment without discussing how the factual situation fits in with
a fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed, as it
has to be ascertained by analyzing all the material facts and the
2 2023 SCC Online SC 393
3 (2011) 7 SCC 639
TMD,J
issues involved in the case and argued on both sides. It is
submitted that disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance upon
a decision is not proper.
6. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that
since the petitioners have not been appointed against any
regular vacancies, their cases cannot be considered for
regularization. In support of his contention, he placed reliance
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Vibhuti Shankar Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
Others 4. Further, in support of his argument that part-
time/temporary employees cannot claim regularization as a
matter of right, dehors the regularization policy, he placed
reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Union of India and Others Vs. Ilmo Devi and Another 5.
Thus, he submitted that the petitioners are not entitled for
regularization of their services.
7. Learned Government Pleader further pointed out
that the petitioners were only appointed on temporary basis in
the year 2006 and not in the year 1993, as claimed by the
4 2023 SCC Online SC 114
TMD,J
petitioners and therefore, the petitioners cannot be placed on
par with the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6949 & 7008 of 2018.
8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the
material on record, this Court finds that in this writ petition, the
questions to be decided are:
(i) whether the petitioners herein are similarly placed
as the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6949 & 7008 of 2018 and even if
they are similarly placed, whether the decision of the Division
Bench in the case of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6949 & 7008 of
2018 can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioners
herein, particularly when the Division Bench has held that the
said decision is not to be considered as a precedent in any other
case ?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are also entitled for
regularization of their services pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.16, dated
26.02.2016 ? and
(iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief of
regularizations ?
9. Since the Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.Nos.6949 & 7008 of 2018, dated 05.03.2018, has held that
the decision therein cannot be treated as a precedent in any
other case, this Court is also of the opinion that the same
cannot be cited by the petitioners herein seeking similar relief,
TMD,J
though in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners in
W.P.No.14064 of 2021, this Court had directed the respondents
to grant similar relief as was granted to the petitioners in
W.P.Nos.6949 & 7008 of 2018, dated 05.03.2018. Therefore, the
first issue is decided against the petitioners.
10. As regards the second issue, this Court finds that
the petitioners have been working with the respondents from
the year 1993 as certified by the respondents officers in the
recommendations for regularization of the services of the
petitioners and the respective documents are filed along with
the writ petition. Further, the petitioners are seeking
regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 26.02.2016.
However, on going through the said G.O., it is noticed from the
conditions mentioned therein, that the employees should be
working against the sanctioned posts and that they should be
working on contract basis and that the said conditions are not
satisfied in this case. As submitted and relied upon by the
learned government pleader on the decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court cited by learned government pleader that
regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right dehors the
regularization policy, and since the petitioners do not fit into
TMD,J
regularization policy of the Government, their requests cannot
be considered. However, since the petitioners have been working
for nearly three decades without any break and though their
services are mentioned as temporary basis and not as contract
basis, in view of their long service and because they are being
paid a consolidated amount of pay and not the regular pay
scale, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the
petitioners for regularization as and when the next sanctioned
vacancy arises in terms of G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 26.02.2016 by
considering the service of the petitioners as on contract basis.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ
petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 09.02.2024
bak
TMD,J
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Dated: 09.02.2024
bak
