Telangana High Court
P Satyanarayna, vs T.S.Bevarage Corporation Limited on 10 July, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 5831 OF 2012
O R D E R:
Petitioner was appointed as Kawalakar in Ranga
Reddy District vide order dated 03.09.1983 under the
administrative control of the 2nd Respondent. Thereupon, as a
matter of government policy, 4th class employees were shifted to
the 1st Respondent Corporation and in that process, petitioner
joined the 1st Respondent Corporation on 11.02.1992 where his
services were regularized as per G.O.Ms.No.193, dated
14.03.1990, however, due to internal politics, he was made a
scapegoat in the hands of higher-ups vide order dated
08.07.1992 restoring his original position i.e. Attender on full
time contingent basis. Feeling aggrieved by the said order,
petitioner is stated to have filed Writ Petition No.10161 of 1992,
wherein initially, interim direction was granted to continue
petitioner in the regular post and scale, thereafter Writ Petition
was allowed on 28.07.1993 setting aside the impugned order.
However, Respondents have not passed any order having regard
to the observations made in the above Writ Petition as well as
the Contempt Case, inasmuch as, as per G.O.Ms.No.193, dated
14.03.1990, his services were regularized vide above said order
and regularization was in accordance with the said GO.
According to petitioner, as Respondents have not passed any
order after allowing the Writ Petition, he is deemed to have been
held in a regularized post and further regularization legally
speaking does not arise at all.
It is stated, services of some of the Data Entry
Operators who were drawn from A.P Technology Services
Limited to the 2nd Respondent Corporation were absorbed with
effect from the date of joining in the 2nd Respondent Corporation
vide G.O.Ms No.2091, dated 30.11.2005, whereas petitioner was
denied same benefits, as such petitioner claims to be entitled for
regular pay scale with effect from 27.06.1992 to 30.11.2005. It
is stated, petitioner submitted representations dated
17.01.2011, 24.02.2011 and 19.05.2011, but however, by the
impugned order dated 29.06.2011, his request was turned down
as decision of the government has already been communicated
vide letter dated 01.01.2011, hence there is no need to revisit
the earlier decision in this regard.
2. In the counter filed on behalf of the 1st respondent,
it is stated that A.P. Beverages Corporation Limited, hereinafter
referred to as the 'Corporation' is a Government Company
established during 1986. All the shares are held by the
Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Board of Directors has
been constituted by the Government. Under the Articles of
Association of the Corporation, the directives or instructions
issued by the Government shall be followed by the Corporation.
The Corporation shall give effect to the directions regarding the
conduct of business and matters involving finance.
Petitioner was appointed temporarily as Kawalkar of
Fathenagar Village, Vallabhnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District
on 03.09.1983. While working as Village Servant at the Office of
the M.R.O. Balanagar, R.R. District, on an Application, he was
appointed by transfer as Attender on full time contingent basis
on a consolidated salary of Rs.750/-P.M. vide Proceedings dated
11.02.1992. During June, 1992, the then Managing Director of
the Corporation on the eve of his transfer, appointed petitioner
as Attender on regular basis in the existing vacancy vide
Proceedings dated 27.06.1992 and his pay was fixed at
Rs.740/- with effect from 29.06.1992. The Board of Directors in
their meeting held on 04.07.1992, while reviewing the decisions
of the former Managing Director resolved to set-aside these
orders along with other irregular orders and accordingly, the
individual was restored to the original post of contingent
Attender on a consolidated salary of Rs.750/- P.M. with effect
from 08.07.1992 vide Proceedings dated 08.07.1992. In view of
the reasons mentioned above, the contention of petitioner that
his services were regularized due to his satisfactory service and
G.O.Ms.No. 193, dated 14.03.1990 is totally wrong.
It is also stated, this Court while disposing Writ
Petition No.10161 of 1992 on 28.07.1993 observed that
impugned proceedings are set aside on the ground that the
order does not give any reason for setting aside the promotion
/regularization which was already made and is not a speaking
order. This will not preclude the respondents from taking
appropriate action according to law. Respondents will consider
the payment of salary to the petitioners for the period they
worked. The Corporation through Letter dated 19.02.1994
requested the Government to issue necessary instructions in
this regard for taking further action on the orders of the High
Court. While the orders of the Government are awaited, the
individual filed Contempt Case No. 353 of 1994 which was
dropped by order dated 07.08.1995.
Further, it is stated, the Government through
G.O.Ms.No.2091 dated 30.11.2005 issued orders for
regularization of services of nine individuals who were engaged
on daily wage / temporary /contingent appointment by transfer
basis in vacant posts earlier against the sanctioned strength
and petitioner was one among them. Subsequently, as per the
clarification issued by Government through letter dated
27.06.2008, the services of nine individuals were regularized
with effect from 30.11.2005. Petitioner made representations to
the Managing Director for regularizing his services with effect
from his date of joining in the Corporation. The proposals on the
request of the petitioner for regularization of his services with
effect from his date of joining in the Corporation were sent to
the Government for re-examining the orders issued in
G.O.Ms.No.2091, dated 30.11.2005. The Government through
its letter dated 01.01.2011 informed the Corporation that under
G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, regularization of contingent
/ daily wise employees is always ordered with effect from the
date of issue of the G.O. and not from the date of joining of the
employee in the Corporation. The Government in its letter dated
29.06.2011 further observed that there is no need to re-visit the
earlier decision taken in the case of the petitioner.
It is also stated, the A.P. Beverages Corporation
Limited drawn the services of Data Entry Operators from A.P.
Technology Services Limited during 1994 and they were
extended Pay Scale of Rs.910-1645 (PRC 1986) and also
released subsequent increments. Subsequently, pursuant to the
directions of Government in G.O.Ms.No.2091, dated
30.11.2005, they were absorbed in the services of the
Corporation with effect from their date of joining in the
Corporation and they were treated on par with the regular
employees with effect from 30-11-2005 i.e. from the date of
issue of the said G.O. Hence, the contention of the petitioner
that he was denied the benefits that were extended to Data
Entry Operators despite they were juniors to him is not correct.
The cadre of the Data Entry Operator is much higher than that
of petitioner. The Data Entry Operators were extended pay scale
while drawing them from A.P. Technology Services Limited
during 1994. However, petitioner was appointed as Attender on
full time contingent basis on a consolidated salary of Rs.750/-
P.M. during 1992. There are no merits in the above Writ
Petition, hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.
3. In the counter filed by the 2nd respondent, it is
stated, the Corporation is a new Corporation incorporated in the
name and style of Telangana Beverages Corporation Limited,
and started its functioning from 02.06.2014. Petitioner was
tentatively allotted to Telangana Beverages Corporation Limited
vide Circular dated 20.04.2015 pending final allocation of
employees. This respondent stated in similar lines as that of the
1st respondent.
4. Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel
for petitioner as well as Sri Ch. Shashi Bhushan, learned
Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent and Smt. B.
Annapurna, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Services-I on behalf of the 2nd respondent.
5. The crux of the grievance of petitioner is that his
past services, i.e. from 1992 to 2005, prior to the impugned
regularization order dated 30.11.2005 are not accounted for. In
this connection, it is to be noted that it is settled law in view of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in The
State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M. Raja Rao 1, and also the
judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in The State of A.P.
vs. L.B.M. Krishna 2, wherein it was held that services rendered
prior to regularization can be taken into account for computing
qualifying service for pension and retirement benefits.
6. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that
petitioner was appointed as a full-time contingent Attender in
1992, and though his subsequent regularization on 27.06.1992
was revoked by the respondent authorities on the ground of
some irregularities during the tenure of earlier Managing
Director, petitioner was reverted to his initial category of full-
time contingent Attender, and he continued in service as such.
So, therefore, in view of the settled law, the services rendered by
petitioner, prior to regularization, (i.e., from 1992 onwards) shall
Writ Petition No.1425 of 2019 (High Court of A.P)
be taken into account for computing the qualifying service for
pension and retirement benefits. It is made clear that petitioner
shall not claim retrospective monetary benefits on account of
this order.
7. The Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of. No
costs.
8. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
---------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
10th July 2025
ksld
