Telangana High Court
K.Vijayender Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 11 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.No. 15533 of 2022
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of
mandamus by calling for the records relating to the Proceedings
No.289035/LWS/B3/GHMC/2022-117, dated 16.02.2022
issued by the respondent No.4 and declaring the same as illegal,
arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and
to further direct the respondents either to absorb the petitioner
in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) or Quli
Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority (QQSUDA), in terms
of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.6681 of 2003,
dated 12.11.2021 and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ
petition are that the petitioner is a Diploma holder in Civil
Engineering and was appointed as NMR under the respondent
No.3 on 01.01.1989 and when the petitioner's services were not
regularized even after completion of five years of service, the
petitioner and similarly situated persons approached this Court
by filing W.P.No.12618 of 1996 and vide orders dated
15.10.1997, this Court was pleased to dispose of the writ
TMD,J
petition directing the respondent No.1 to accord permission to
the Administrator, Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development
Authority (QQSUDA) to regularize the services of the petitioner
in the post in which petitioner is working and pay appropriate
pay scales within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of the copy of the order. Questioning the said orders, the
respondents filed W.A.No.720 of 1998 and the same was
dismissed for non-prosecution basing upon the orders passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.272725-27277 of
1995. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.834, MA
dt.22.09.1998 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for
regularization. The petitioner and similarly situated persons
thereafter filed C.C.No.354 of 1998 and while the same was
pending, the respondent No.4 Corporation, vide letter dated
20.05.1998, addressed a letter to the Principal Secretary to the
Government, Municipal Administration to absorb the 110 NMRs
working in QQSUDA and thereafter, the Government issued
G.O.Ms.No.588, MA dated 19.12.2000 to absorb the 49 NMRs
initially in the Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, as per the
Letter No.A2/360/97, dated 29.01.2000 of the Administrator,
QQSUDA. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another C.C.No.1380 of
2000 for non-implementation of the orders passed in
TMD,J
C.C.No.354 of 1998 and vide orders dated 10.07.2001, the said
Contempt Case was disposed of with certain directions. It is
submitted that the petitioner never sought for transfer from the
respondent No.3 to respondent No.4, but on their own, the
respondent No.3 had transferred the petitioner to respondent
No.4 and that the petitioner is willing to work anywhere even in
the parent department i.e., respondent No.3, if petitioner's
services are absorbed in the regular vacancy as directed by this
Court. It is submitted that at present, there are number of
existing vacancies in the respondent No.4 Department, where
the petitioner is working at present, but the petitioner's claim
has been rejected vide impugned orders dated 16.02.2022 by
the respondent No.4 on the sole ground that the previous
service rendered by the petitioner in Quli Qutub Shah Urban
Development Authority has not been counted as per the
condition imposed in G.O.Ms.No.588, MA dated 19.12.2000 and
in view of the said alleged condition, the petitioner's service from
the year 1989 to 2001 i.e., more than 12 years of service has
not been counted for the purpose of regularization. It is
submitted that the condition in G.O.Ms.No.588 is applicable
only when the petitioner's claims seniority and other attendant
benefits, but since the petitioner is not claiming any seniority or
TMD,J
other attendant benefits to the said service, but he is only
claiming the services from 1989 to 2001 to be counted for the
purpose of regularization of petitioner services in terms of law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma
Devi. It is submitted that both Quli Qutub Shah Urban
Development Authority as well as the Greater Hyderabad
Municipal Corporation have to count the said services for the
purpose of regularization, otherwise it amounts to unfair labour
practice and the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and
injury and also is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed challenging
the rejection order dated 16.02.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the
attention of this Court to the proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.834, MA
dated 22.09.1998 wherein the claim of the petitioner and others
similarly placed persons for regularization was rejected. He has
also drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings dated
20.05.1998 of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH)
where under 110 NMRs working in Quli Qutub Shah Urban
Development Authority as Kamatee/Kamatan/
Safaikarmacharies posts were absorbed into MCH to the
TMD,J
referred letter dated 03.02.1998, as they were surplus staff in
various irrigation circles and therefore, it was agreed to absorb
the 110 NMRs of Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development
Authority in the vacant Kamatee/Kamatan/Safaikarmacharies
posts in the scale of Rs.1375-2375 provided the NMR's are
willing to perform their duties assigned to the above posts. One
of the conditions was that above persons would be
accommodated as per their community in the 684 vacant posts
of Kamatee/Kamatan/Safaikarmacharies and the balance
would be filled up by the persons from the surplus staff of
irrigation circles as and when they report for duty and they will
be placed in the last rank of the existing employees of the above
categories. It is submitted that the Administrator, Quli Qutub
Shah Urban Development Authority addressed a letter dated
29.01.2000 to the Special Officer and Commissioner, Municipal
Corporation of Hyderabad, giving the list of 46 work charged
NMRs of Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority for
absorption in MCH as per their respective qualifications. It was
stated that MCH may utilize some of their services in the
Engineering or Town Planning Wing as they were having
Technical qualification and that due to acute financial crisis,
Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority has not been
TMD,J
undertaking civil works for the past one year as there are no
P.S.Charges earned by the authority and has not been able to
pay the wages of these work charged NMRs. In the list of NMRs,
the name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No.23.
Accordingly, the G.O.Ms.No.588 MA, dated 19.12.2000 was
issued, according permission to the Commissioner and Special
Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, to assign 49 work
charged NMRs of Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development
Authority subject to the following conditions:
(a) the service rendered in Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development
Authority by the said NMRs previously shall not be counted in
Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad;
(b) the NMRs of Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority
so permitted into Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad shall perform the
duties and functions as prescribed in Municipal Corporation of
Hyderabad i.e., the duties of Kamatees, Kamatans and Safai
Karmacharies, etc.;
(c) they shall be paid the salaries from the date of their joining
into Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and shall be paid the salary
prescribed to NMRs/work-charged employees only;
(d) the Service of the 49 NMRs in Municipal Corporation of
Hyderabad shall not count for any other purpose and they shall be sent
back to the Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority without any
prior notice to them. The Commissioner and Special Officer, Municipal
Corporation of Hyderabad shall obtain an undertaking on a Bond Paper
to that effect;
TMD,J
(e) the Commissioner and Special Officer shall meet the
expenditure on the salaries of 49 NMRs from the funds of Municipal
Corporation of Hyderabad only.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a
representation to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of
Hyderabad on 06.08.2001 stating that while he was working in
Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority from 1989, his
services were not regularized on the ground that he had not put
in five years of service by 25.11.1993 and that he filed
W.P.No.12618 of 1996 and by orders dated 15.10.1997, the
High Court was pleased to direct the Government to accord
permission to the Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development
Authority for regularization of services and thereafter, the
Government vide G.O.Rt.No.834 MA, dt.22.09.1998 had rejected
his case for regularization and therefore, the petitioner filed
Contempt Case i.e., C.C.No.354 of 1998. It is submitted that by
order dated 14.10.1998, the Court further directed the
respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner and
when the said order was also not implemented, the petitioner
filed C.C.No1380 of 2000 and basing on the averments made by
the Learned Advocate General that services of the petitioner will
be absorbed in the regular posts in the Municipal Corporation of
TMD,J
Hyderabad, since there is no work in the Quli Qutub Shah
Urban Development Authority, this Court had closed the
Contempt Case with a direction to the petitioner to report before
the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, for absorption in the
regular vacancies. Accordingly, the petitioner has reported
before the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad for absorption.
Pursuant thereto, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of
Hyderabad, vide proceedings dated 21.08.2001 has admitted
the petitioner and others to duty w.e.f. 06.08.2001 subject to
the conditions stipulated in the Government Order vide
G.O.Ms.No.588, MA & UD (F1) Department, dated 19.12.2000.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6681 of 2003 seeking
directions to the respondents No.3 and 4 therein to continue the
petitioner in Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, as per the
Procs.No.257/B3/LWS/MCH/2001/1290, dated 21.08.2001 in
the time scale of pay or to allow the petitioner to continue under
the respondent No.4 therein in the minimum time scale of pay
as per the Letter No.257/LWS/B1/MCH/98/368, dated
20.05.1998 and this Court had disposed of the writ petition
with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for
regularization in terms of the decision of this Court in
W.P.Nos.45949, 46007 of 2018 & also W.P.No.36805 of 2018
TMD,J
dated 11.10.2018. The entire exercise was directed to be
completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of the copy of the order. Pursuant thereto, the respondents have
issued a letter dated 16.02.2022 rejecting the case of the
petitioner for regularization on the ground that as per
undertaking given by the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.588 MA,
dated 19.12.2000, his case cannot be considered for
regularization. Challenging the same, the present writ petition
has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus while
reiterating the above contentions, has submitted that the
petitioner is seeking consideration of his past service in Quli
Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority for regularization
purposes only and not for any other benefits such as
backwages.
6. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent,
however, relied upon the averments made in the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 and stated that
the petitioner and others were already surrendered to GHMC
and therefore, it is for GHMC to take care of the service related
TMD,J
issues and respondent No.3 has no say whatsoever in the said
matter.
7. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent
No.4, GHMC, it is stated that as per the undertaking given by
the petitioner at the time of absorption into GHMC, the earlier
services in Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority shall
not be considered for any purposes including for regularization
of services into the Corporation and further that the petitioner
and others have not completed ten years of service in the
respondent No.4 Corporation to consider their case for
regularization in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Uma Devi's case and thus, the rejection order is
justified by the respondents.
8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the
material on record, this Court finds that the petitioner had
earlier worked in Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development
Authority and his services were not regularized in the said
organization even though his services were absorbed into
respondent No.4 Corporation. One of the conditions imposed at
the time of absorption is that they will not claim any benefit of
service rendered by them in Quli Qutub Shah Urban
TMD,J
Development Authority. Such condition was imposed not only
for his seniority and other benefits, but also for seeking
continuity of service in Greater Hyderabad Municipal
Corporation. The petitioner having given willingness voluntarily
at the time of absorption into Greater Hyderabad Municipal
Corporation, cannot now turn around and submit that his
earlier services in Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development
Authority should be considered for the purpose of regularization
in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. As per the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi,
the services of a person who has completed five years of service
can be regularized in an existing vacancy and if the services of
the petitioner in earlier organization is to be counted and his
services were to be regularized in an existing vacancy of Greater
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, there would be other
employees of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation whose
service conditions would get affected. Therefore, the condition
that the petitioner will not claim his earlier service in Quli
Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority assumes importance
and he can only claim the services for the period during which
he has served in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for
TMD,J
the purpose of all service benefits including regularization of
services.
9. However, if the services of the petitioner in GHMC
were to be considered, he has been absorbed into services of
GHMC from the year 2000 and the petitioner has put in nearly
twenty four years of service in GHMC. Thereafter, number of
vacancies might have arisen after the petitioner has put in more
than ten years of service as required as per the guidelines
issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi.
The petitioner has put in only three years of service in Quli
Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority, while he has served
in GHMC for nearly twenty four years. Therefore, the
respondent No.4 has to take steps for regularization of the
services of the petitioner in the vacancies that have arisen after
the petitioner satisfied the required number of years of service
for regularization of his services. This Court, in earlier round of
litigation, had directed the respondents to consider the
regularization of the services of the petitioner herein, but the
respondents have been giving one or the other reason for
denying relief to the petitioner.
TMD,J
10. Therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to
direct the respondent No.4 to consider the service rendered by
the petitioner in its organization from 2000 onwards and
consider regularization of his services against the regular
vacancy which has arisen after the petitioner has completed ten
years of continuous service. The petitioner shall be eligible for
all consequential benefits of regularization after his services are
regularized.
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: 11.03.2024
bak
