Telangana High Court
G.Venkateshwara Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 18 March, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION No. 22029 of 2020
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the inaction
of the respondents in regularizing the services of the
petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of
principles of natural justice and consequently to direct
the respondents to regularize the services of the
petitioners by absorbing them in the last grade services
vacant in the press and to pass such other order or
orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ
petition are that the petitioners have set up a canteen in
the Government Central Press under respondent No.1-
Department for the press employees since 1984 and
claim to be running the same eversince. It is also stated
that the cost of the furniture and other expenditure was
paid by the Government through subsidy since 1984 and
the same is being continued as per Rule 63 (2) of the
Andhra Pradesh Factories Act, 1950. It is submitted that
the canteen is being run with a fond hope of regularizing
TMD,J
their services, but, the respondents have not taken any
action thereon. It is submitted that thereafter, the
Finance Department as well as the Law Department have
accepted the contentions of the petitioners and have
recommended the regularization of their services.
However, no action has been taken by the Government
and therefore, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed
reliance upon the office memorandum, dated 21.04.2008
issued by the Government of India, Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department
of Personnel and Training, whereunder the employees of
the canteen setup under the Central Government
Departments were directed to be regularized in terms of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma
Devi and others1. He further submitted that in similar
circumstances, Delhi High Court in the case of Mohan
Singh and others v. Chairman, Railway Board and
others in W.P.(C).No.6582 of 2003 has held that the
(2006) 4 SCC 1
TMD,J
canteen which is being run under the Railways should be
treated as Railway canteen and the employees of the said
canteen as Railway employees and they shall be eligible
for all the benefits.
4. Sri Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government
Pleader, appearing for respondents submits that the
canteen has been set up by the petitioners as a mutually
aided cooperative society and are running it as a
business concern and that it was being run by the
Department, as claimed by the petitioners. It is
submitted that the recommendations of the Finance
Department and Law Department were only on
sympathetic lines but not as per the eligibility of the
petitioners for regularization. It is submitted that the
petitioners, being the employees of a mutually aided
cooperative society, cannot seek regularization and
therefore, the request cannot be accepted.
5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the
material available on the record, this Court finds that the
petitioners themselves have stated that they have been
TMD,J
running the canteen in the Government Central Press by
forming a cooperative society of A.P. Government Central
Press Co-operative Canteen Limited in the year 1984. It
is also stated that they have received subsidy from the
Government from which they have spent for furniture
and other expenditure. Such being the case, it cannot be
accepted that the canteen is being run by the
Government. The office memorandum as well as the
judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner are not applicable to the present case. The
office memorandum, which is issued by the Central
Government, was to regularize all the qualified persons
appointed in the departmental canteens and the
judgment in the case of Mohan Singh (supra) is also to
treat the unrecognized canteen as recognized i.e., railway
canteen and employees of the said canteen as railway
employees and thereafter to grant the benefits to the
employees. However, these documents will not come to
the support of the petitioners as the facts in both the
case are distinguishable. Since the petitioners were not
working as employees of any canteen, which is being run
TMD,J
by the Government, this Court does not find any merit in
this Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
7. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
also stand closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 18.03.2024
PRN
