Telangana High Court
Syed Khalid vs State Of Tg,Prl.Scy,H.E,Hyd,And 4 on 7 January, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
wp_7452 & 7461_2015 and wp_25531_2016
NBK, J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION Nos.7452 and 7461 of 2015
AND
WRIT PETITION No.25531 of 2016
COMMON ORDER:
The issue involved, so also the grievance, in these writ petitions
being identical, they are analogously heard and are being disposed of
by this Common Order.
2. W.P.No.7452 of 2015 is filed by Syed Moieed Ahmed Savi, and
W.P.No.7461 of 2015 is filed by Syed Zakir Nehri, who are working as
Lab Boys in the 4th respondent-Mumtaz Degree & P.G. College (Aided)
since 11.06.1995. Similarly, W.P.No.25531 of 2016 is filed by Syed
Khalid, working as Lab Boy in the same 4th respondent-college since
10.07.1995. The petitioners are rendering services as Lab Boys against
Aided vacancies for almost three decades now. They filed these writ
petitions alleging inaction on the part of respondent authorities in
absorbing/regularizing their services in clear aided vacant post of Lab
Boy by re-deploying them to any other Government Degree & P.G
college in the State on completion of ten years of service from the date
of their initial appointment as per the law laid down by the Hon' ble
wp_7452 & 7461_2015 and wp_25531_2016
NBK, J
Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari 1, wherein
paragraph No.53 of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi 2, was clarified
and thus the inaction is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently to direct the
respondents 1 to 3 to absorb / regularize the services of the
petitioners and re-fix their pay scale from the date of initial
appointment and pay all arrears of salary and difference of pay,
including granting of consequential benefits like for payment of
pensionary benefits on superannuation.
3. Heard Mr. Sadu Rajeshwar Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioners; learned Government Pleader for Education for
respondents-Department of Collegiate Education; learned Government
Pleader for Finance and Planning for respondents-Finance & Planning
Department; and Mr. Srinivas Chamarthy, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of Mr. B. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4
and 5-Mumtaz Degree & P.G. College.
4. The petitioners challenge the inaction of respondent authorities
in regularizing their services as Lab Boy from the date of their initial
appointment in the year 1995, and pray for a direction to notionally
(2010) 9 SCC 247
(2006) 4 SCC 1
wp_7452 & 7461_2015 and wp_25531_2016
NBK, J
regularize their services and re-fix their pay by adding notional
increments in the 4th respondent college retrospectively from the date
of their respective initial appointment dates in the year 1995, for the
purpose of pensionary benefits. They also seek redeployment to any
other Department in case their post is surrendered to the Government
by the 4th respondent-College, during pendency of these writ petitions.
5. The issue as to "whether past services can be taken into
consideration for the purpose of pension" is no more res integra. It is
settled law that past services prior to regularization can be counted for
the purposes of pensionary benefits. Further, it is not in dispute that
the petitioners are qualified to render services as Lab Boys in the
respondent No.4-College. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi
(supra) has also distinguished between appointments that are illegal
and irregular. It is not the case of either of the parties that the
appointment of petitioners is either illegal or irregular.
6. Furthermore, in the instant case, it is not in dispute that the
petitioners possess necessary qualifications to render services as Lab
Boys, and they are working against aided vacancies and are rendering
services for almost three decades, and therefore they are entitled to
the benefit of judgment in Umadevi (supra). As the petitioners have
wp_7452 & 7461_2015 and wp_25531_2016
NBK, J
been working for more than 10 years as stipulated in Umadevi, they
are entitled to regularization, including re-deployment to any other
Department, akin to the cases of surplus employees of a
merged/dissolved Department, in case their existing post of Lab Boy
happened to have been surrendered to the Government by the 4th
respondent-College.
7. It would be relevant to note at this juncture that a similar issue
with regard to counting of past service for pensionary benefits fell for
consideration before this Court in W.P.No.24580 of 2016, which is a
case of one Mohd. Naseeruddin Farooqi who was also discharging
duties as a Lab Boy in the very same 4th respondent-Mumtaz College.
This Court, by order dated 29.01.2024, by referring to judgments of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.L. Kesari (supra); Amarkant Rai v. State
of Bihar 3, and the judgment of Hon' ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh
in State of Andhra Pradesh, School Education Dept., Velagapudi,
Guntur Dist. v. L.B.M. Krishna 4, allowed the writ petition WP
No.24580 of 2016. This Court is of the view that the discussion and
ratio of the order in WP No.24580 of 2016 is applicable to the facts of
the case at hand.
(2015) 8 SCC 265
2020 (2) ALT 381 (DB)
wp_7452 & 7461_2015 and wp_25531_2016
NBK, J
8. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the present writ petition, and keeping in view the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.L. Kesari (supra), and
Amarkant Rai (supra) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Division
Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in L.B.M. Krishna (supra),
these Writ Petitions deserve to be allowed.
9. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed by granting the relief
prayed for by the petitioners. Respondent No.1 is directed to pass
appropriate orders with regard to the request of the petitioners for
regularization of their services as Lab Boys and also granting of
notional increments, as per the judgment of Hon' ble Supreme Court in
Umadevi (supra). Respondent No.1 shall also pass appropriate orders
on the aspect of re-deployment of petitioners to any Department in
case their post happened to have been surrendered to the
Government. The entire exercise shall be completed a period of three
(03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and the
same shall be communicated to the petitioners. Miscellaneous
petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________________
JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
07.01.2025
ksm
