Telangana High Court
D.Maria Das vs The State Of Telangana on 3 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.1186 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
This Writ Appeal assails the order dated 02.07.2025 passed
by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4956 of 2021, whereby
the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. Heard Sri G. Allabakash, learned counsel for the appellant;
Ms. M. Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-II for
respondent No.1, Sri Srinivasa Srikanth, learned Standing
Counsel for Telangana State Power Transmission of Corporation
Limited (TSTRANSCO) for respondent Nos.2 to 5 and perused
the record.
Factual Matrix in brief:
3. The factual background, necessary for the adjudication of
this appeal, is as follows:
i. The appellant/writ petitioner (hereafter "the petitioner")
was engaged as a contract labourer (skilled worker) in the
Electricity Department of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh
State Electricity Board (APSEB) on 01.05.1993.
ii. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.41
dated 23.09.1996, prohibiting engagement of contract
labour in certain categories. Consequently, APSEB issued
B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997 and B.P.Ms.No.326 dated
14.03.1998, providing for absorption of contract labour in
abolished categories with service benefits from
06.12.1996 and pecuniary benefits from 09.12.1997.
iii. The petitioner's case for absorption under the said 1997
scheme was initially rejected on the ground that he was
supplied through an unlicensed contractor. The writ
petitioner challenged the rejection of absorption in
W.P.No.4209 of 1999, and this Court directed the
respondents to consider his case without disqualifying the
petitioner on the ground that he was supplied through an
unlicensed contractor. Pursuant to the order, the
petitioner was interviewed on 28.10.1997, but no further
action was taken.
iv. The petitioner was eventually absorbed as Artisan Grade-
II on 29.07.2017 on an 'as-is-where-is' basis under a
settlement reached with trade unions under Section 12(3)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the 1947
Act') and was approved by the Government, which was
expressly without service or pecuniary benefits for the
prior contract period.
v. The petitioner superannuated on 01.07.2020, and filed
W.P.No.4956 of 2021 seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of writ of mandamus to declaring the impugned action of
the respondents in not allowing the petitioner the regular service
and notional seniority w.e.f 1.5.1993 and pecuniary benefit
w.e.f. 1.5.1993 while extending such benefits to all other
contract labour absorbed under the scheme of absorption vide
B.P.Ms. No.36, dated 18/05/1997 and B.P.Ms.No.271 and 272
dated 31/12/1997 and B.P.Ms. No. 326 dt 14.3.1998 and
thereby denying the petitioner the equal treatment and further
action of the respondents in giving consolidate pay to the
petitioner while fixing higher scale to all other contract labour
absorbed under the same scheme is highly illegal, arbitrary and
violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and
consequently direct the respondents to allow the service benefit
w.e.f 1.5.1993 and pecuniary benefit from 1.5.1993 as per B.P.
Ms. 326, dt 14/3/98 as allowed to the other similarly Situated
persons vide Memo No. CEE/O& MJDR NTTPS /Adm /C.3 /F.
8/D. N0. 2813/11, dt 14/12/2011 as per the orders of this
Honorable Court in writ Petition No. 2179/2006, Dt 19/11/2010
and pass....
4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the underlying writ
petition, holding that the writ petitioner was absorbed as
outsourced personnel in TSTRANSCO on as-is-where-is basis;
that he did not choose to challenge the absorption order dated
29.07.2017 issued by the respondent No.2; and that the
petitioner's failure to seek regularization of his services from the
date of his initial appointment in the year 1993 had rendered
the relief sought in the present writ petition, barred by delay
and laches.
Contentions of the appellant:
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
appellant had been continuously working as contract labour
from 01.05.1993 in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State
Electricity Board (APSEB), which was subsequently restructured
into APTRANSCO. After the formation of the State of Telangana,
APTRANSCO was renamed as TSTRANSCO, under which
institution the appellant continued in service till 30.06.2020.
6. It was contended that the respondents themselves admitted
in their counter affidavit that the appellant's services had been
regularized in the cadre of Artisan Grade-II with effect from
29.07.2017. The learned counsel for the appellant therefore
argued that the appellant was entitled to all consequential
benefits, including counting of his prior service from 01.05.1993
for purposes of pension and terminal benefits, in the same
manner as extended to similarly situated contract labour under
B.P. Ms. No. 326.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that,
following the dismissal of W.P.(PIL) No. 149 of 2017, the
respondents issued Memo dated 28.11.2019 regularizing the
appellant's services with effect from 29.07.2017, rendering any
challenge to the earlier proceedings unnecessary. It is further
contended that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate this
crucial fact, and the denial of consequential benefits despite
such regularization is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and
21 of the Constitution of India.
8. It was contended that the learned Single Judge failed to
consider the ratio of the judgment in W.P. No. 17643 of 2012,
dated 16.07.2018, and the circular issued by the respondents
vide Memo dated 13.08.2024, extending pensionary benefits to
artisans who have retired or are due to retire. Learned counsel
urged that denial of the pensionary benefits to the appellant was
discriminatory and contrary to both precedent and
administrative policy.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the
impugned order, contending that the order suffers from no
infirmity in law or on facts. It was submitted that the learned
Single Judge rightly appreciated the record and applied the
settled legal principles, warranting no interference in appeal.
The learned Standing Counsel for TSTRANSCO further
submitted that the appellant was absorbed only in 2017 on an
"as-is-where-is" basis under a settlement accepted without
protest, excluding any claim for past service benefits. The
appellant never challenged the terms of absorption. The
precedents relied upon by the appellant relate to cases under
B.P. Ms. No. 37, which are inapplicable to the facts of the case
of the appellant. It was also urged that the claim is hopelessly
belated and barred by laches, and that the Circular Memo dated
13.08.2024 has no retrospective operation.
10. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
Analysis and Reasons:
11. It is pertinent to note that the appellant's absorption was
affected pursuant to a Memorandum of Settlement entered into
under the 1947 Act, which has statutory force and binds both
the employer and the employees under Section 18 of the Act.
The settlement terms unequivocally provided that the
absorption would be on an 'as-is-where-is' basis, thereby
excluding recognition of the appellant's past contract service for
any consequential benefits, including seniority, pension, or
other terminal dues. The appellant, with full knowledge of these
stipulations, accepted the absorption and continued in service
without protest for several years. Thus, the appellant having
availed the benefits of such settlement without demur cannot
now seek to reopen or alter its terms after his retirement.
12. A perusal of the record would show that the appellant was
absorbed into service pursuant to proceedings issued in 2017
and continued therein until his retirement on 30.06.2020. The
record reveals that at no point during his service did the
appellant challenge the terms of his absorption or assert any
claim for retrospective regularization or consequential benefits.
The underlying writ petition is instituted only in 2021 nearly
four years after the absorption and a year after retirement
without offering any explanation for the inordinate delay and
this only goes to show that such prolonged inaction, silence in
asserting his rights and unexplained inaction amounts to
acquiescence and attracts the principles of delay and laches.
[[[
13. Further, the reliance placed by the appellant on the
judgments rendered in W.P. No. 2179 of 2006 and W.P. No.
17643 of 2012 is wholly misconceived. Those cases pertained to
employees who were absorbed under B.P. Ms. No. 37, dated
18.05.1997, a scheme framed for the regularization of contract
labour engaged in prohibited categories pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.
41, Labour Department, dated 23.09.1996. The appellant,
however, was not covered by that scheme. His absorption was
effected much later under a distinct Memorandum of Settlement
entered into under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1947, which was a
self-contained arrangement having statutory force.
14. It is further to be noted that, the terms of that settlement
specifically provided for absorption on an "as-is-where-is" basis,
thereby expressly excluding the counting of past contract
service for seniority, pension, or other consequential benefits.
The appellant, having been absorbed under this separate and
independent settlement, cannot claim parity with those covered
under B.P. Ms. No. 37. In this regard the learned Single Judge,
therefore, rightly distinguished the precedents relied upon and
held that they have no application to the appellant's case.
15. This Court is of the view that the Circular Memo dated
13.08.2024 merely outlines procedural formalities for payment
of gratuity, GIS, and other terminal benefits and does not confer
any substantive right to count past contract service. It cannot
be construed as modifying or overriding the terms of the
Memorandum of Settlement, under which the appellant was
absorbed on an "as-is-where-is" basis. Therefore, the learned
Single Judge rightly held that the Circular has no retrospective
effect and creates no enforceable right in favour of the appellant.
16. This Court does not dispute that the appellant had
rendered long and continuous service with the respondent-
Corporation. However, mere length of service, by itself, does not
create an enforceable right in the absence of a statutory or
contractual foundation. Equity, though a guiding consideration,
cannot be invoked to defeat settled legal principles or to rewrite
binding terms of employment voluntarily accepted by the
appellant under the Memorandum of Settlement.
17. In this regard, the appellant's plea for notional
regularization from the year 1993, dehors the express
stipulations of the settlement under which he was absorbed on
an "as-is-where-is" basis, is legally untenable. Granting such
retrospective regularization would not only lack legal sanction
but would also unsettle the established seniority structure and
service conditions of other employees who have been absorbed
or promoted in accordance with the governing rules.
18. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the
considered opinion that the Writ Appeal is devoid of merits. The
order of the learned Single Judge is just, equitable, and legally
sound.
19. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
G.M. MOHIUDDIN, J
Date: 03.11.2025
ssp
