Telangana High Court
Devaambhatla Krishna Murthy vs Union Of India on 25 February, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.2281, 2329, 2857 OF 2025
AND 30285, 30331, 30353, 31292, 31383 OF 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Since a common issue is involved in all these Writ Petitions,
with the consent of both sides, they are heard together and being
disposed of by this common order.
2. W.P.No.2281 of 2025 is taken as a lead case for the disposal
of all these Writ Petitions.
3. W.P.No.2281 of 2025 is filed seeking to issue an appropriate
writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature
of Writ of Mandamus by setting aside the Circular
No.APGVB/Per&HRD/1424/2024-25, dated 30.12.2024 issued by
respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to
direct the respondent to conduct further selection process and
regularize service by giving appointment order to the petitioner in
the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as are
deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
4. Heard Sri Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Smt. V. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for
respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the material on record.
5. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is an
employee of Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank and has worked
from 1997 to 2019, rendering continues services without any gap
during the said period. The respondent - Bank had introduced a
Scheme with certain conditions, including a written test, which is
impossible for the petitioner to comply. As such, the petitioner
challenged the unreasonable conditions in W.P.Nos.6541, 6930,
6985 and 11988 of 2023. The said writ petitions were allowed and
an order dated 21.07.2023, which was challenged in W.A.No.1167
of 2023 by the respondent, but the same was dismissed vide
judgment dated 31.01.2024. Having not satisfied by the same, the
respondent has filed SLP (C) No.10119-10122/2024 which was also
dismissed vide order dated 13.05.2024. As a result, the order of the
learned Single Judge dated 21.07.2023 has attained finality.
6. Subsequently, a fresh scheme without such conditions was
released on 13.06.2024, calling for applications to be submitted on
or before 28.06.2024. Accordingly, the petitioner had submitted his
application before the cutoff date. However, the petitioner's
application was rejected vide impugned letter dated 30.12.2024,
issued by respondent No.3, which reads as follows:
"We refer to your representation received on 28.11.2024
in connection to the directions in Writ Appeal No.1126 of
2024 and inform that the Bank has verified all the records
submitted by you in order to demonstrate period of
service worked in the Bank.
2. On verification, the documentary evidence
submitted by you demonstrate that you have not fulfilled
the criteria of having worked for a period of 10 years in
the Bank as on 31.12.2017, as required in accordance
with the scheme of regularization dated 13.02.2023.
Therefore your representation dated 28.11.2024 is
disposed of accordingly as aforementioned."
Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ
Petition.
7. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, respondent No.3
has filed counter affidavit denying various allegations made in the
Writ Petition. The averments made in Paragraph No.16 of the
counter, which is relevant, is extracted hereunder:
16. It is further submitted that after verification of
documents, the scrutiny committee has observed as
under:
Name of the applicant Scrutiny Committee Remarks
Ananthoju Naveenachary 1. In the year 2012, it is
observed that the
applicant worked for 3
days in the absence of
permanent messenger.
2. From Sept. 2013 to Nov.
2017, the applicant
worked as sweeper before
bank business hours for
half an hour in a day and
he was not engaged as
casual/daily wager.
3. From Dec. 2017, the
applicant worked as
causal/daily wager and
thereafter from Jan. 2018
he worked through
outsourcing agency for
housekeeping works.
Hence, considering his
service from Dec. 2017 to
13.02.2023 i.e. cut-off
date as fixed in the
scheme, the applicant has
not worked 10 years as
casual/daily wager as
required under the
scheme.
Hence, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents sought for
dismissal of the Writ Petition.
8. In retaliation, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
the impugned rejection order dated 30.12.2024 passed by
respondent No.3 lacks proper clarification as regards service
particulars of the petitioner and that the service duration of the
petitioner in the impugned order has not been explained in a proper
and detailed manner. The case of the petitioner has been rejected
merely on the ground of not completing 10 years of service, without
proper explanation about the service details of the petitioner and
the dates involved therein, and it is a cryptic in nature.
9. The cases of the petitioners in other Writ Petitions also stand
on the same footing.
10. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the
respective parties, all these Writ Petitions are disposed of directing
the respondent authorities to pass a speaking order for rejecting the
cases of the petitioners vide impugned order dated 30.12.2024, in
accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to
costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in
these Writ Petitions, shall stand closed.
____________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Date: 25.02.2025
HFM
