Telangana High Court

B Ramloo Died Per Lrs vs The Dist Collector on 30 January, 2025

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

              WRIT PETITION No. 585 OF 2018

O R D E R:

Petitioner seeks regularization of services as

Warden Grade-II (Hostel Welfare Officer) along with payment of

associated benefits, such as increments, gratuity, pension,

commutation of pension and revised pay scales.

2. According to petitioner, he was appointed on

temporary basis on 15-09-1981, with the condition that his

services would be regularized upon acquiring the necessary

qualifications, specifically Teacher Training Certificate (TTC),

which he did not possess. It is the claim of petitioner that

despite rendering service for 36 years, his services were not

regularized and he was denied various benefits, leading to

severe financial and emotional hardships.

It is stated, as per G.O.Ms. No.176, dated

15-11-1976, prescribed qualification for the post included

completion of H.S.C. or S.S.L.C. along with TTC certificate.

Petitioner acquired intermediate qualification at the time of

appointment but failed to clear TTC examination due to

financial constraints. Despite this, he served diligently in his

position for 36 years till his retirement on 30-09-2017. He

claims to have been subjected to harassment and punitive

measures by the then Joint Director of Social Welfare,

Sri. G. Suresh Reddy, including suspension and withholding of

increments. Petitioner contends that these actions were taken in

retaliation for his refusal to comply with certain demands by the

authorities. It is stated, petitioner was consistently denied

regular benefits such as increments, revised pay scales, and

retirement benefits. He compares his situation with that of

Smt. Amtur Raheem, who was similarly appointed as Matron

Grade-II in 1985 under the same qualification condition but was

allowed to continue in service, receiving increments and other

benefits despite not having the TTC qualification, on the foot of

the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No. 9032 of 2011. Petitioner

asserts that failure to regularize his service and grant him due

benefits is arbitrary and unjust, especially in light of his long

tenure. Moreover, the petitioner submitted several

representations to the respondents on 16-05-2016, 13-06-2016,

and 06-07-2016, requesting regularization and the release of

benefits. These representations, however, remained

unaddressed, and the petitioner retired without any resolution

of the matter. This failure has caused significant financial

hardship for the petitioner, who had a family to support,

including two unmarried daughters.

3. During the hearing, I.A.No. 1 of 2021 was taken out

to bring the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner on

record. The said Application was ordered on 21.07.2023.

Accordingly, petitioners 2 to 4 were permitted to be brought on

record.

4. The 2nd respondent - Joint Director of Social

Welfare denied petitioner's allegations and presents a detailed

counter-affidavit. According to him, petitioner's appointment on

15-09-1981 was made on temporary basis with a clear

stipulation that his services would be regularized only upon

acquiring the requisite qualifications, specifically TTC

certificate, as per G.O.Ms No. 176 SW(A2) dated 15-11-1976,

from a recognized institution, in addition to basic educational

qualification like H.S.C. or S.S.L.C. However, he never acquired

the said qualification, as a result, his services could not be

regularized and his pay was fixed at the minimum scale due to

his failure to meet the qualification criteria, and he was not

entitled to increments or other benefits associated with regular

employment.

Regarding petitioner's allegations of harassment

and suspension by Sri. G. Suresh Reddy, respondents deny any

such unfair treatment. It is asserted that Joint Director, Sri. G.

Suresh Reddy was not the competent authority to impose

disciplinary actions, such as suspension or withholding of

increments. Instead, these actions were taken by the District

Collector, competent authority for disciplinary matters. This

respondent lists multiple instances of petitioner being placed

under suspension by the District Collector for alleged

irregularities in the maintenance of government hostels, such as

SW Boys Hostel at Nednoor in 1984, Maheshwaram in 1987,

Ghatkesar in 1989 and similar incidents between 1996 and

2001. However, his failure to pass TTC exam was the key reason

for not regularizing his services. It is also stated, petitioner's

long tenure does not override the requirement for the mandatory

qualifications for regularization. According to this respondent,

petitioner's pay was consistent with the provisions applicable to

temporary employees who did not meet the qualification

requirements for regularization. It is denied that other

employees, despite lacking the qualifications, received pay

scales and increments outside the prescribed guidelines.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri Ch. Ravinder

relies on the judgment in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State

Mineral Development Corporation 1, wherein the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that long service should be considered a

qualification for regularization, even in the absence of initial

qualifications. He further placed reliance on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Kerala v.

Umadevi 2 to contend that a person, who put in considerable

period of service though was appointed without following due

procedure and though is irregular appointment, still be

regularised. In the case on hand, petitioner was sponsored by

(1990) 1 SCC 361

(2006) 4 SCC 1

the Employment Exchange and was a regular employee, hence,

he cannot be said to irregular employee. Placing further

reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State

of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari 3, learned counsel submits that

petitioner though does not possess requisite qualification at the

time of appointment, in view of rendering 36 years of service, he

is entitled to be regularised.

6. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-II

and perused the record.

7. Admittedly, petitioner's appointment was made on

temporary basis with a clear understanding that regularization

would occur only upon fulfilment of qualification requirements

specified in G.O.Ms. No.176 SW(A2) dated 15-11-1976, i.e.,

possession of TTC certificate. While petitioner did not fulfil this

requirement, the fact that he continued in service for 36 years

without regularization is a matter of concern. It is to be taken

note of that petitioner's long and dedicated service as well as his

treatment by respondents, including disciplinary actions and

(2010) 9 SCC 247

penalties, suggests that authorities considered him to be a

regular employee in practice, even if not in status. Though

learned Government Pleader urges that the case of petitioner

cannot be considered for regularisation for his failure to possess

TTC certificate, the principle laid down in the aforementioned

cases supports the view that long service should not be

disregarded for considering regularization, especially when

employees have been allowed to serve without meeting initial

qualification criteria.

8. In Bhagwati Prasad's case, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that 'practical experience would always aid the

person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to

assess the suitability. The initial minimum educational

qualification prescribed for different posts is undoubtedly a

factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of initial entry

into the service. Once the appointments are made as daily rated

workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length

of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the

confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they

lack the prescribed educational qualifications'

9. In Umadevi's case (supra), at para 53, it is held as

under:

"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071] , R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme".

10. Following the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in M.L.Kesari's case held that there is an exception to

the general principles against 'regularisation' enunciated in

Umadevi's case, if the following conditions are fulfilled.

(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any Court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years,

(ii) The appointment of such employee should not beillegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointment s are considered to be irregular.

It is further held that 'it is needless to say that if the

respondents do not fulfil the requirements of para 53 of the

Umadevi's judgment, their services need not be regularised. If

the employees who have completed ten years service do not

possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at

the time of their appointment, they may be considered for

regularisation in suitable lower posts.

11. In light of the facts and the legal principles set forth

in the afore-mentioned cases, though it is laid down in M.L.

Kesari's case, that employees, who do not possess educational

qualifications prescribed for the post, may be considered for

regularisation in suitable lower post, since petitioner rendered