Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs R.Kamalamma on 20 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL No.92 of 2025
JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul):
Sri S. Satyanarayana Rao, learned Government Pleader
for Services-I, for the appellants and Sri S. Gopal Rao, learned
counsel for respondent/writ petitioner.
2. Heard on admission.
3. The parties have fought a long drawn battle in the
corridors of the Court.
4. The respondent/writ petitioner admittedly rendered 35
long years of service with the Department. Initially, she filed
O.A. No. 6842 of 1994 before the then existing Andhra Pradesh
State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of the O.A.
on 23.11.1994 directing the respondents therein to verify
whether the writ petitioner has satisfactorily worked, eligible and
suitable for regularization and pass appropriate orders.
Thereafter, the writ petitioner again filed O.A. No.5528 of 2001.
The Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. on 19.08.2001 by
directing the concerned Chief Engineer to take appropriate
action on proposal sent by the Superintendent Engineer within
one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order regarding
the prayer of regularization. The writ petitioner again
approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 4824 of 2005 which
was disposed on 09.09.2009 by the following directions:-
"6. In the light of the above circumstances, the O.A. is
disposed of. The respondents are directed to pursue the
matter with the Government regarding the sanction of last
grade post and in the event of sanction of the post the
candidature of the applicant shall be considered for
regularization of her services in the last grade service
subject to fulfillment of other conditions as per G.O.Ms. No.
212 dated 22.04.1994 or G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 23.07.1997
as the case may be."
5. Thereafter, the writ petitioner again filed O.A.No.2879
of 2015 which, on abolition of Tribunal, was transferred to this
Court and was re-registered as W.P.(TR).No.3778 of 2017. In this
transferred O.A., the writ petitioner has called in question the
legality, validity and propriety of memo dated 05.08.2023. In the
said memo, it was stated that although there exists a sanctioned
post in the last grade service, the writ petitioner does not
possess the requisite qualification and therefore, her claim for
regularization was rejected. Learned Single Judge allowed the
said W.P.(TR) by order dated 18.12.2023 directing the appellants
to consider the case of the writ petitioner for regularization with
notional benefits in the light of her long service and pass a
reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Challenging
the said order of learned Single Judge, the present appeal is
filed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that two
conditions must be fulfilled for grant of regularization namely:
(i) existence of a vacant post and (ii) requisite qualification for the
said post. Since the writ petitioner did not possess the requisite
qualification, she could not have received the benefit of
regularization. Apart from this, learned Single Judge has
ordered for regularization despite the fact that the writ petitioner
stood retired on 28.02.2015. After retirement, question of
regularization does not arise.
7. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner supported the
impugned order and submits that the writ petitioner diligently
fought for her right. She has rendered 35 years of long service
which itself shows that there was a continuous and regular need
of a post against which she has worked. The learned Single
Judge has rightly relied on certain judgments of the Supreme
Court and directed for regularization.
8. No other point is pressed by the parties.
9. So far the question of antedated regularization is
concerned, in the peculiar facts of this case, it is clear that the
writ petitioner has been fighting for regularization for the last few
decades. Unfortunately, her claim was settled by the appellants
after her retirement. Although, it cannot be forgotten that she
filed her first O.A. in the year 1994 and thereafter, filed several
other O.As. for the same claim, the appellants, for the reasons
best known to them, took a conscious decision only on
05.08.2023 i.e., after the writ petitioner's retirement. Thus, the
writ petitioner challenged the said order after her retirement and
therefore, there is no delay on the part of the writ petitioner.
10. The learned Single Judge, after relying on certain
judgments of Supreme Court, came to hold that the writ
petitioner was appointed through due process and was duly
sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, Nalgonda on
08.04.1980. She rendered 35 years of service on the date of
filing of O.A.No.2879 of 2015. In this backdrop and after
considering the judgment of Supreme Court in Nihal Singh and
others v. State of Punjab 1, learned Single Judge opined that
the sanctioned post does not fall from heaven and State has to
create it as per its conscious choice. The State, as noticed
(2013) 14 SCC 65
above, took decades to take a decision on the claim of a poor
employee for regularization. The writ petitioner, in our opinion,
by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be a "backdoor
entrant" because her name was duly sponsored by the
Employment Exchange. She has rendered 35 years of service.
Thus, learned Single Judge has taken a plausible view and
directed her consideration for regularization with retrospective
effect and with notional benefits. We do not see any merit which
warrants interference by us.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed. The appellants shall implement this order positively
within sixty days from the date of communication of copy of this
order. No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
___________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
____________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 20.03.2025
Myk/Tsr
