Telangana High Court
T. Padma vs The Tahsildar And 3 Others on 24 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.27401 of 2022
ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the
proceedings No.A2/6893/2009, dated 18.06.2001, issued
by the 3rd Respondent.
2. Heard Sri R.Anurag, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for
Services-II, appearing for the respondents.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper in May
1993 on temporary basis. While so, the petitioner filed
O.A.No.2878 of 2000 seeking regularization in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, which was allowed on
23.02.2001. Aggrieved thereby, the State has filed a writ
petition and obtained an interim order, and thereby, the
salary was not paid to the petitioner. As such, the
petitioner has again filed O.A.No.4669 of 2003. The same
was disposed of on 11.06.2009, directing the Department
to verify the attendance register and, if amounts are due,
make arrangements to release payment within one month.
As the respondents took no action, the petitioner has once
again filed O.A.No.428 of 2011 and the Tribunal on
27.08.2013 directed the respondents to pay salaries due
from March 1993 to November 2009 along with the balance
amount, if any, by deducting the amount already paid to
the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the
Hon'ble Lokayukta, and with the intervention of the
Hon'ble Lokayukta, the respondents issued a cheque for
the amount of Rs.49,066/-. However, it was observed that
if the petitioner has any grievance, she must file an
appropriate application before the Tribunal. Subsequently,
the petitioner filed W.P.No.40239 of 2016 seeking
regularization of services and payment of arrears and after
admission of the said writ petition, the petitioner filed
W.P.M.P.No.49587 of 2016 seeking a direction to the
respondents to consider the representation for
regularization and payment of arrears and salaries. This
Court disposed of the said writ petition on 07.03.2021,
directing the respondents to consider the representation of
the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of the said order. After disposal of the
said writ petition, the respondents passed the impugned
order dated 18.06.2021, rejecting petitioner's case for
regularization. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed
the present writ petition.
4. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that the
petitioner was temporarily appointed as a Sweeper by the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal, vide Proceedings
No.C/3876/1993, in the month of May 1993. The
petitioner approached the Tribunal for payment of wages
and regularization of her services. The Tribunal, vide order
dated 30.02.2010, in Ο.Α.Νο.1026/2010 issued directions
to the 3rd respondent therein, the District Collector, to pass
orders on the letter dated 22.12.2009 of the 1st
Respondent, i.e., the Tahsildar in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212,
dated: 22.04.1994. Accordingly, in pursuance of the orders
of the Tribunal, the case of the petitioner was examined,
and in terms of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated
22.04.1994, she has to complete (5) years of service on or
before 25.11.1993, to get eligibility for regularization of
service in the Department. In this instant case, the
petitioner was appointed on 07.05.1993 and did not
complete (5) years of service as required under
G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. The 3rd Respondent has
rejected the Petitioner's case for regularization of service
vide Proceedings No.A2/6893/2009, dated 07.08.2010.
The petitioner was disengaged from service by September
2000, but as per the order of the Tribunal in
O.A.No.428/2011, dated 27.08.2013, the wages and
arrears were paid to the petitioner up to September 2009
as per the attendance certificate issued by the then
Tahsildar, Hanumakonda (1st respondent).
5. It is further stated that the petitioner has filed
W.P.No.40239 of 2016, and this Court disposed of the said
writ petition, directing the respondents to consider the
representation submitted by the petitioner and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law. Pursuant to
the said order, the respondents have examined the matter
and rightly passed the impugned order, rejecting the
Petitioner's case.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sweeper on
31.05.1993, and the respondents ought to have regularized
her services.
7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in SECRETARY, STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs. UMA DEVI 1 with regard to
the regularization of employee's services.
(2006) 4 SCC 1
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further
submits that the employee shall be regularized whenever
the employee completes ten years of his/her service. The
petitioner was appointed in the year 1993 and
continuously worked and completed nineteen years of
service by 2012. The petitioner's services ought to have
been regularized with effect from 2012, but the
respondents have erroneously passed the impugned order
rejecting the petitioner's claim. Hence, the impugned order
is liable to be set aside.
9. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submits that the respondents, after
considering the material available on record, rightly passed
the impugned order, and there are no grounds to interfere
with the same. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of
merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Considering the rival submissions made by learned
counsel for the respective parties, and perusing the record,
the Petitioner initially filed O.A. for regularization of service
under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. Under the said
G.O., the government formulated a scheme for the
regularization of services of the persons appointed on daily
wage/NMR or on consolidated pay, which will continue on
the date of commencement of the Act. The Government
accordingly decided that the services of such persons who
worked continuously for a minimum period of five years
and are continuing as on 25.11.1993 be regularized by the
appointing authorities subject to fulfillment of the following
conditions :-
1) The person appointed should possess the
qualifications prescribed as per rules in force as on
the date from which his/her services have to be
regularised.
2) They should be within the age limits as on the
appointment date as NMR/Daily wage employees.
3) The rule of reservation, wherever applicable, will be
followed, and backlog will be set off against future
vacancies.
4). Sponsoring of candidates from the Employment
Exchange is relaxed.
5) Absorption shall be against clear vacancies of
posts considered necessary to be continued as per
work-load excluding the vacancies already notified to
the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission /
District Selection Committee.
6) In the case of Workcharged Establishment, where
there will be no clear vacancies, because of the fact
that the expenditure on Workcharged is at a fixed
përcentage of P.S. charges and as soon as the work is
over, the services of work charged establishment will
have to be terminated, they shall be adjusted in the
other departments, District Offices provided there are
clear vacancies of last Grade Service."
11. In the instant case, the petitioner has filed O.A. for
regularization of her services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212,
dated 22.04.1994. As per the preliminary condition in the
said G.O., the petitioner has to complete five years of
service as on 25.11.1993, whereas the petitioner was
appointed in the month of May, 1993. A perusal of the
record discloses that the petitioner could not complete five
years of service as on 25.11.1993 and therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled for regularization of her services.
Further, pursuant to the award of the Lokayuktha, the
respondents have issued a cheque for an amount of
Rs.49,066/- to the petitioner.
12. The Apex Court in UMA DEVI's case (1 supra), held
as follows :-
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
ACC (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 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 principals settled by this court in the cases
above referred 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 regularization, 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 regularizing
or making permanent, those not duly appointed as
per the constitutional scheme."
13. As per the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner has to
complete ten years of service. Since the petitioner has not
completed ten years of service, the petitioner is not entitled
to regularization of her services. Therefore, this Court is of
the opinion that the respondents have rightly passed the
impugned order rejecting the petitioner's case for
regularisation of his services and there are no grounds to
interfere with the same. Therefore, the writ petition is
devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order
as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
24.03.2025
Prv
