Telangana High Court
S. Venkateshwarlu vs The State Of Telangana on 20 November, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.1957 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the entire action of the
respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners in
respective posts in which they are working even though they are fully
eligible, satisfied criteria laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Para 53 of its judgment in 2006 (4) SCC (1), despite of their repeated
representations/requests is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust,
improper, colourable exercise of power and contrary to the above
judgment reported in 2018 (2) ALD 282 DB r/w recent judgment
dated 10.10.2022 in W.P.No.14020 of 2013 and batch while
regularizing the similarly situated persons is as illegal, arbitrary,
discriminatory, violative of all principle of natural justice and
consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith consider
regularization of services of petitioners in respective posts in which
the petitioners are working in terms of criteria laid down Para 53 of
judgment in 2006 (4) SCC (1) which was considered in Division
Bench of this Court reported 2018 (2) ALD 282 DB r/w recent
judgment dated 10.10.2022 in W.P.Nos.14020 of 2013 &batch w.e.f.
the day on which they completed 5 years of service with all
consequential benefits..."
2. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Kata, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Shalini,
learned Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing for
the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the petitioner were engaged as daily
wage/consolidated employees by the respondents with
effect from 01.07.1991, 08.11.1991, 02.05.1995 and
2 PK,J
wp_1957_2024
11.05.1994 respectively. Since then they are discharging
their duties regularly on par with regular employees
against the vacancies available in the respective offices.
Learned counsel further submits that duly taking into
consideration the long length of service rendered by the
petitioners, the then Chairman, DRDA, Nalgonda, issued
proceedings No.A1/82/2003, dated 01.11.2008 extending
the benefit of Minimum Time Scale of Pay attached to the
post hold by them with effect from 01.09.2008. Apart
from the above, the petitioners were also extended the
benefit of Revised Pay Scales in the years 2005, 2010,
2015 and 2020, except the benefit of regularization of
their service. Learned counsel further submits that the
Government issued G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994,
wherein it has decided that the services of the persons,
who have completed a continuous and minimum period
of five years of service and has been continuing, shall be
regularized. Pursuant to the said G.O., the Governing
body vide proceedings, dated 13.11.1995, also resolved
that the services of the employees, who have completed
five years of service in the agency, shall be regularized.
3 PK,J
wp_1957_2024
Learned counsel further submits that in case of one
Smt.G.Amruthamma, employee of DRDA, respondent
No.2 issued Memo No.4326/MU.V(1) 2023, dated
25.07.2003 regularizing her services and when it comes
to the petitioners, the respondents have not considered
their case for regularization though they are seniors to
said Amruthamma.
4. Learned counsel also submits that when
similar issue fell for consideration before the Division
Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
U.V.S.R. Prasad and others v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, rep.by its Prl.Secretary Municipal
Administration & Urban Development Secretariat,
Velgapudi, Guntur District [W.P.No.27217 of 2017,
dated 19.09.2017], the High Court allowed the writ
petition with a direction to the respondents therein to
consider regularization of the services of the petitioners
therein against the existing vacancies of Work Inspectors
and appoint them subject to their satisfying the criteria
laid down in para No.53 of the Judgment in State of
4 PK,J
wp_1957_2024
Karnataka v. Umadevi1. In such circumstances, the
petitioners seek permission of this Court to make a
representation before the respondents to consider their
cases in terms of the order passed by the erstwhile High
Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.27217 of 2017, dated
19.09.2017, within the stipulated time.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II
submits that as the said Amruthamma was appointed
against the sanctioned vacancy, the respondents were
justified in regularizing her services. She further submits
that if the petitioners make a representation before the
respondents the respondents will consider the same and
pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by
learned counsel for respective parties, without going into
the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of
directing the petitioners to make a representation
narrating all the facts of the case within a period of two
(2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
and on filing of such representation, the respondents are
(2006) 4 SCC 1
5 PK,J
wp_1957_2024
directed to consider the same and pass appropriate
orders, in accordance with law, in the light of orders
passed by the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.27217 of 2017, dated
19.09.2017, as expeditiously as possible, preferably
within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter. There shall
be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions if any, pending in this writ
petition shall stand closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
Date: 20.11.2024
Note:
Issue C.C in two (2) days.
(B/o)
YVL
