Telangana High Court
Syed Shabbir Ahmed vs The State Tg And 5 Others on 28 May, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 34114 OF 2016
O R D E R:
Petitioner seeks to direct Respondents to regularize
his services as Clerk-cum-Bill Collector from the date of his
initial appointment on 01.11.1981, instead of the prospective
date ie. 23.09.2011 as per G.O.Ms.No.327, Panchayat Raj &
Rural Development Department, dated 23.09.2011, and to grant
all consequential benefits, including seniority, pay fixation, and
pensionary benefits. The Petitioner further prays for setting
aside the condition in Para No.5 of G.O.Ms.No.327, dated
23.09.2011, which stipulates that regularization shall be
effective from the prospective date i.e. the date of issuance of the
order.
2. Petitioner states that he was appointed as Clerk-
cum-Bill Collector in the Gram Panchayat Lachannagudem,
Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District, vide Sarpanch Gram
Panchayat Lachannagudem of Vemsoor Mandal No.14/1981,
dated 01.11.1981, on a consolidated pay of Rs.150/- per month.
He passed SSC examination in 1983, thereby acquiring the
necessary educational qualification for regularization. Petitioner
contends that he rendered continuous service for over 30 years,
initially, as a part-time employee and later as a regularized
employee, until his retirement on 30.06.2016.
Petitioner relies on G.O.(P) No.112, Finance (PC-III)
Department, dated 23.07.1997, issued by the 2nd Respondent,
which provided for regularization of services of employees who
had completed 10 years of service and possessed requisite
educational qualifications. He submits that he fulfilled the
eligibility criteria under the said G.O., having completed more
than 10 years of service by 1997 and possessing the SSC
qualification since 1983. Petitioner approached the Andhra
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT) by filing O.A.No.8652 of
2001, seeking regularization of his services in terms of G.O.(P)
No.112, dated 23.07.1997. The APAT vide order dated
05.12.2001, disposed the O.A. in terms of the order in
O.A.No.8241 of 2001, dated 20.11.2001, directing the
Respondents to examine Petitioner's case along with other
eligible candidates for regularization as per G.O.(P) No.112.
Petitioner alleges that despite Tribunal's direction, Respondents
failed to act promptly and kept his case pending for a decade. It
was only pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.327, Panchayat Raj & Rural
Development Department, dated 23.09.2011 that the 1st
Respondent permitted regularization of services of 12 part-time
employees, including Petitioner, whose name was listed at Serial
No.9 in the annexure to the G.O. Petitioner's services were
regularized as a Bill Collector vide Proceedings dated
26.12.2011, issued by the 5th Respondent and he was posted at
Gram Panchayat, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. However,
the grievance of petitioner is that regularization was made
effective prospectively from 23.09.2011, as stipulated in Para
No.5 of G.O.Ms.No.327, which mandated that regularization be
subject to the condition that vacancies are clear, regular, and
continued, and that no senior eligible person is overlooked.
According to petitioner, prospective regularization from
23.09.2011 is arbitrary, unjust, and violative of his fundamental
rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He
argues that having rendered continuous service since
01.11.1981 and fulfilled the eligibility criteria under G.O.(P)
No.112 as early as 1997, his services ought to have been
regularized from the date he became eligible, i.e., 01.11.1991
(after completing 10 years of service) or at least from the date of
issuance of G.O.(P) No.112, i.e., 23.07.1997. The delay in
regularization was solely attributable to Respondents' inaction
and cannot be used to deny him retrospective regularization.
It is further stated that condition in Para No.5 of
G.O.Ms.No.327, restricting regularization to a prospective date,
is discriminatory and contrary to the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi 1,
which mandates regularization of employees who have rendered
long years of service on a continuous basis. It is stated,
Petitioner was ranked at Serial No.10 in the seniority list of
NMR/part-time employees working on or before 25.11.1993, as
acknowledged by the Respondents, and no senior eligible
candidate was overlooked during his regularization. He submits
that Respondents' failure to grant retrospective regularization
has resulted in significant financial loss, including lower pay,
denial of increments, and reduced pensionary benefits. He seeks
a declaration that the condition in Para No.5 of G.O.Ms.No.327
is ultra vires and prays for regularization from 01.11.1991 or
23.07.1997, with all consequential benefits.
3. The 5th Respondent - District Panchayat Officer,
Khammam District filed a detailed counter affidavit denying
Petitioner's claims and justifying the prospective regularization.
It is stated, Petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk-cum-
Bill Collector in Gram Panchayat Lachannagudem vide
proceedings dated 01.11.1981, on a consolidated pay of
Rs.150/- per month. He continued in the same capacity and
passed SSC examination in 1983. This Respondent
(2006) 4 SCC 1
acknowledges that Government issued G.O.(P) No.112, Finance
(PC-III) Department, dated 23.07.1997, which provided for the
regularization of services of employees who had completed 10
years of service and possessed requisite educational
qualifications. Petitioner filed O.A.No.8652 of 2001 before the
APAT, seeking regularization under G.O.(P) No.112. The APAT,
vide order dated 05.12.2001, directed Respondents to examine
Petitioner's case along with other eligible candidates. Pursuant
to the said direction and in accordance with G.O.(P) No.112, the
1st Respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.327, dated 23.09.2011,
permitting regularization of services of 12 part-time employees,
including Petitioner, whose name was listed at Serial No.9. It is
asserted that Petitioner's services were regularized as a Bill
Collector vide Proceedings dated 26.12.2011, and he was posted
at Gram Panchayat Bhadrachalam, Bhadrachalam Mandal,
Khammam District, after being relieved from Gram Panchayat
Marlapadu, Vemsoor Mandal.
It is also stated, in G.O.Ms.No. 327, at para 5 has
clearly mentioned that regularisation shall be done from
prospective date subject to condition that the said vacancies are
clear, regular and continued from time to time till date and no
serious eligible person is overlooked / omitted. The said
condition is not assailed before this Court and having accepted
the same, it is not open to petitioner to seek present relief.
4. The 6th respondent filed the counter urging in
similar lines as that of the 5th respondent. It is further stated
that regularization of all eligible candidates, including
Petitioner, was completed in 2011, and Petitioner also availed
the benefits of regular service until his retirement. Granting
retrospective regularization would disrupt the seniority of other
employees and create administrative chaos, as the vacancies
against which Petitioner was regularized were identified only in
2011. This respondent is only a Drawing and Disbursing Officer
who maintained service register of petitioner and he is not
competent to deal with the counting of service for regularisation.
5. Heard Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel on
behalf of Ms. Kanumuri Kalyani, learned counsel for petitioner
and Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned Standing Counsel on behalf
of the 6th respondent. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in District Collector /
Chairman v. M.L. Singh 2.
6. This Court has carefully perused the pleadings and
documents filed by both the parties. The undisputed facts are
(2009) 8 SCC 480
Petitioner was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Bill Collector on
01.11.1981 and continued in service without interruption. He
acquired SSC qualification in 1983 and completed 10 years of
service by 01.11.1991, making him eligible for regularization
under G.O.(P) No.112, dated 23.07.1997. Primary contention of
Petitioner is that prospective regularization from 23.09.2011 is
arbitrary, as he was eligible for regularization as early as in
1997. Respondents counter that regularization was governed by
G.O.Ms.No.327, which explicitly mandated prospective effect,
and Petitioner accepted the same without challenge at the time.
7. G.O.(P) No.112, dated 23.07.1997 was a policy
decision by the Government of Telangana to regularize the
services of employees who had completed 10 years of service
and possessed requisite educational qualifications. Petitioner
fulfilled this criteria by 1997, having served over 15 years and
holding an SSC certificate. The APAT's order dated 05.12.2001
in O.A.No.8652 of 2001 directed Respondents to consider
petitioner's case along with other eligible senior candidates in
terms of G.O.Ms.No. 212 F & P, dated 22.04.1994 read with the
judgment rendered by the High Court of
A.P. in Writ Appeal No. 374 of 2001 and batch dated 27.04.2001
and pass appropriate orders taking into consideration the
existence of sanctioned clear vacancies, yet no action was taken
for a decade. This inordinate delay, attributable solely to the
Respondents, cannot be used to prejudice Petitioner's rights.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi's case (supra) held
that employees who have rendered long years of continuous
service on posts that are regular in nature are entitled to
regularization, provided they meet the eligibility criteria.
Petitioner's case squarely falls within this principle, as he
worked continuously on a post that was later regularized as a
Bill Collector.
8. Respondents' apprehension that retrospective
regularization would disrupt seniority or create administrative
chaos is unfounded for Petitioner is not seeking regularization
against a non-existent post but against the post of Bill Collector,
which he held since 1981. In view of the same, this Court, in the
interests of justice, feels it appropriate to direct respondents to
regularise the services of petitioner from the date on which O.A.
was ordered.
9. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of
directing Respondents to regularise the services of petitioner
from 05.12.2001 on which date O.A.No.8652 of 2001 was filed
with all consequential benefits. No costs.
10. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
28th May 2025
ksld
