Telangana High Court

G. Durga Prasad vs The Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, on 3 September, 2025

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

                 WRIT PETITION No. 30491 OF 2017

O R D E R:

Petitioners were appointed as temporary Para-

Medical Staff on ad hoc basis in Respondent No.1 - Company.

All the Petitioners are fully qualified to hold the posts against

which they were selected as per recruitment rules. The

appointments of the Writ Petitioners with details are as under:

SI.No Name& Designation Mode of Recruitment Date of joining Qualification G. Durga Prasad Temporary Diploma in

Medical Technician (Dental) Campus selection/application 25.07.2005 Dental Hygienist Diploma in

2 Y. Malathi Temporary Nursing General Nursing Assistant Employment Exchange 23.05.2007 and Midwifery V. Madhavi Temporary

Nursing Assistant -do- 11.08.2006 -do-

Diploma in 4 Nagarajeswarulu Temporary Ophthalmic Eye Technician -do- 30.01.2007 Assistants Diploma in 5 M. Sowjanya Rani Temporary General Nursing Nursing Assistant Internal Circular 13.05.2009 and Midwifery G. Manjula Temporary Dresser

Munaga Pandurangaiah Application 16.04.2010 Health Worker.

Munga Pandurangaih Multi Purpose

Temporary Dresser Apprentice 11.03.2009 Health Worker
M Shalini Temporary Nursing

Assistant Internal Circulation 13.05.2009 -do-
O. Sumalatha Temporary E.C.G

Technician Employmen t Exchange 09.08.2012 ECG Technician
K. Syamala Devi Temporary

Dresser Campus selection/application 21.02.2008 Health Worker.
Y. Karunamma Temporary Multi Purpose

Dresser -do- 16.04.2010 Health Worker
B. Nancharamma Temporary

Dresser -do- 16.04.2010 Health Worker.
A. Mogulamma Temporary Multi Purpose

Dresser -do- 16.04.2010 Health Worker
M. Anithamma Temporary

Dresser -do- 11.03.2009 -do-
M. Jogulamma Temporary

Dresser -do- 16.04.2010 -do-
16 Burka Sekhar Temporary X-Ray Employment Exchange 12.03.2012 Certificate In

Technician Radiographic
Asst. Course.
G. V. Shiva Rao Temporary

E.Ν.Τ Technician. Internal Circular 01.02.2010 Nursing Assistant
Certificate in ECG
18 G. Solomon Raju Temporary Technician
E.C.G. Technician Employment Exchange 25.01.2012 Course
Dip. in Medical
Sterilization
Management and
19 Operation
Theatre
Saini Dhanaprasad Temporary Technician
OT Technician Campus selection/application 01.01.2010 Course
Multi Purpose

Rajakumar Temporary Dresser Apprentice/Application 21.02.2008 Health Worker
P. Raju Temporary Lab

Technician Campus selection /application 07.02.2013 B.Sc. M.L.T
Dip. in
Operation

G Sateesh Temporary OT Theatre
Technician -do- 17.12.2007 Technology
Sudhakar Kampati Multi Purpose

Temporary Dresser -do- 24.03.2009 Health Worker.
K. Sirisha Temporary Bachelor of

Pharmacist Internal Circulation 24.04.2012 Pharmacy
B. Swarna Latha Temporary Campus Bachelor of

Pharmacist selection/application 30.03.2009 Pharmacy
Chaitanya Kolluru Bachelor of

Temporary Pharmacist Internal Circular 26.11.2012 Pharmacy
MangaliNagaraju Bachelor of

Temporary Pharmacist Internal Circular 21.11.2012 Pharmacy
AvunuriSowjanya Bachelor of

Temporary Pharmacist Internal Circular 24.11.2012 Pharmacy
S. Rajeswar Temporary Lab Diploma in Lab.

Technician Apprentice/Application 16.04.2010 Technician

1.1. All the petitioners are Para-medical staff and that

their services are essential. The mode of recruitment is through

employment exchange/internal circulars/campus selection and

applications. The selection was by written test as well as

interview. Thus, the initial recruitment is neither illegal nor

irregular, rather as per recruitment rules. It is pertinent to

make a mention that appointment of petitioners on ad-hoc basis

was initially for a fixed period of six months on consolidated

honorarium. Thereafter, Petitioners are continuing to render

services for years together. Respondent No.1 had indulged in

unfair labour practices by adopting a peculiar method of giving

an artificial gap of a week or so between the intervals of six

months or an year sometimes and reappoint petitioners. The

said act of Respondent No.1 is illegal under Item No. 10 of

Unfair Labour Practices incorporated in the Fifth Schedule of

the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Hence, appointment and

continuing them as ad-hoc employees is unreasonable, arbitrary

and illegal.

1.2. The parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi 1 are fully satisfied.

Petitioners having come through employment exchange, campus

selection/ internal circulars and satisfied the transparent

criteria of the selection to the posts which they were holding

years together have every right of legitimate expectation to get

permanency in the respondent company.

1.3. Respondent Company entered into a settlement

with petitioners on 01-03-2016 under Section 12 (3) of the 1947

Act whereby Respondents have agreed to continue petitioners

on ad-hoc basis as per the existing terms and conditions,

(2006) 4 SCC 1

indicating that there is a need to continue the employment of

petitioners indefinitely, as such appointing them on permanent

basis is justified. The settlements dated 01-03-2016 and

10-03-2016 under Section 12 (3) would show that Respondent

Company had agreed to pay all statutory benefits of ESI, EPF,

Bonus/ SIP as per BHEL norms and also extended the benefit of

housing accommodation to petitioners. They were also provided

with medical insurance up to 2 lakhs. The fact that services of

petitioners are unblemished, and in every case, the senior

officers of Respondent Company have recommended extension

of their services from time to time cannot be ignored while

viewing the matter in its entirety. This Court in similar

circumstances in Writ Petition No. 19136 of 2016, granted

interim relief to petitioner therein by ordering Respondents not

to remove her as long as there is need for engaging her services.

2. In the counter filed on behalf of respondents, it is

stated Respondent No.1 is an integrated power plant equipment

manufacturer and one of the largest engineering and

manufacturing companies of its kind in India engaged in design,

engineering, manufacture, construction, testing, commissioning

and servicing of a wide range of products and services for core

sectors of the economy, viz. Power, Transmission, Industry,

Transportation (Railways), Renewable Energy, Oil & Gas, Water

and Defence and with a widespread network of 17

Manufacturing Divisions, 2 Repair Units, 4 Regional Offices, 8

Service Centres, 4 Overseas Offices, 6 Joint Ventures and 15

Regional Marketing Centres. Respondent company has one of its

manufacturing units situated at Ramachandrapuram,

Hyderabad. To take medical care of its employees and their

dependent family members, it has established a Hospital in its

Township where in-patient and out-patient treatments are

provided. The hospital is 150-bedded, equipped with modern

facilities and qualified medical professionals. However, the

management of respondent company, in order to cater to the

immediate medical needs of the employees working in the

company and their dependent family members, certain medical

personnel were sought to be engaged on temporary basis and

that is how Petitioners have come to being engaged by the

Respondent Company. In this context, having agreed to work on

temporary basis for fixed period/s with applicable terms and

conditions, Petitioners cannot now ask that their services be

made on regular basis and equally, it is misconceived that the

rights that accrue to a citizen under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of

the Constitution are violated. Hence, the services rendered by

the para-medical staff are not for core activities, hence, not

essential in nature. Petitioners were engaged at different periods

and are doing the work of paramedical staff. The mode of

engagement being claimed by them is also not correct as

mentioned supra.

2.1. Petitioners are engaged on ad hoc basis from time to

time but it is not necessary that the Company should run on

its own a mechanism or specific procedure to provide medical

health to the employees. Petitioners having agreed to the terms

and conditions of their tenure, cannot now turn around and say

that management has violated their rights. The contention of

Petitioners that since they were subjected to normal procedure

of selection of both written test as well as viva voce, their

engagement should not be treated as that of contract basis, is

unfounded and the Judgment which they are referring to, has

no bearing on the present lis. Petitioners cannot compare

themselves with the employees that are recruited in the

engineering section / Departments of the company. No right

would accrue to them to be appointed on permanent basis or

they can be treated on par with the employees that are

appointed in Engineering or other Sections of the company.

2.2. The settlement entered upon would not confer any

right on Petitioners for getting appointed on regular basis and

on the other hand, it would confirm that petitioners have agreed

the terms and conditions to be continued on temporary basis.

Further, by conferring the benefits such as ESI, EPF, etcetera,

no right for permanent appointment would accrue to Petitioners.

Thus, their contentions are wholly untenable. Equally in

Ground No.7, they state about the unblemished service and the

recommendations of the officers for their continuation. As an

employee, whether on ad hoc basis or permanent, they have to

work without blemish and equally, the terms of their service

would be governed by the Clauses of the agreement that has

been entered but not on the basis of the recommendations of

the seasoned officers.

2.3. In Ground No 9, Petitioners would try to compare

themselves with Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 19136 of 2016

but the facts of the present case and the issues involved are

entirely different and it has no bearing on the lis of the present

Writ Petition.

3. Heard Sri Prabhakar Chikkudu, learned counsel on

behalf of Sri T. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for petitioners

as well as Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel

representing Sri Ch. Samson Babu, learned Standing Counsel

on behalf of respondents.

4. There is no quarrel to the fact that petitioners are

temporary ad-hoc paramedical staff in Respondent Company

between July 2005 and November 2012. Their appointments

were made through employment exchange, internal circulars,

campus selection and Applications followed by written tests and

interviews. Hence, their initial recruitment was lawful and in

accordance with the prescribed procedure. Respondent

Company had indulged in unfair labour practices under Item

No. 10 of the Fifth Schedule of the Act. The continued

engagement of petitioners as ad-hoc employees for several years

amounts to hostile discrimination, especially when similarly-

placed employees were regularized after just two years of ad-hoc

service. Thus, it is a clear case of discrimination on the part of

Respondent No.1 in not regularising the appointments on

permanent basis. Respondent Company entered into a

settlement with petitioners on 01.03.2016 under Section 12(3)

of the 1947 Act, agreeing to continue their ad-hoc employment

under existing terms. This clearly indicates a continued need for

their services, thereby justifying their appointment on a

permanent basis. The settlements dated 01.03.2016 and

10.03.2016 under Section 12(3) would show that Respondent

Company agreed to provide statutory benefits such as ESI, EPF,

Bonus/SIP as per BHEL norms, along with housing

accommodation and medical insurance up to 2 lakhs. Other

benefits like wages and extended medical coverage were to be

considered at the corporate level. However, petitioners are still

denied of job security and regular pay scales, highlighting an

attempt to exploit them by paying lower wages compared to

permanent employees.

5. This Court, in order to adjudicate the present lis is

relying upon the law laid down by this Court so also by the

Hon'ble Apex Court. This Court in Writ Petition No. 173 of 2022

held that Petitioners, who admittedly satisfy the criteria laid

down in Para No.53 of Uma Devi's case (supra) cannot be

deprived of the right of regularızation. Relevant portion of the

said order is extracted hereunder:-

" 52. Normally, what is sought for pesach temporary employees when the uphold the Pope pharma is the issue of a return of mandamus directing the employer, the state of its instrumentalities to observe them in permanent service or to allow them to continue In this context the question arises whether a mandamus could be issued in favour of such person. At this juncture, it will be proper to refer to the decision of the constitution bench of this court in Rai Shivender Bahadur (Dr) v Governing Body of the Nalanda College. That case a rose out of the refusal to prevent the repetition and they denied the principal of the college will stop this 4 felt that in order that mandamus may issue to compile the authorities to do something it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party had a legal right under the statue or rule to enforce it. This classical position continues and a mandamus could not be issued in favour of the employees directing the garment to make them permanent sense the employees cannot show that they have an enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed or that the state as a legal duty to make them permanent

53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V.

Narayanappa". R.N.Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and refer 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 for 10 years or more but without the intervention of orders of the court or tribunal regularisation of the salaries of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this court in that cases above referred to and in the light of this judgement. In that context, the union of India, the state governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regulate as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for 10 years or more duly sanction posts but not under cover of orders of the court or tribunal and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to full those vacant sanctioned posts that required to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wages are being now unemployed. The process must be set in motion within 6 months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub-judice, need not be reopened based on this judgement, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.

54. It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principal settled in this decision or in which direction running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents."

6. It is apparent on the face of the record that

petitioners are continuing their respective jobs for more than a

decade. Though there was a settlement by the Labour

authorities, Respondents did not act upon the same. Applying

the aforesaid law, Petitioners are entitled to be appointed as

Permanent employees. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court is directly applicable to the case of Petitioners and

thereby, they are entitled for appointments on permanent basis.

The contention of Respondent Company is that Petitioners

joined the employment knowing fully-well that their employment

is temporary, now cannot turn around and demand for

permanent appointment. This submission cannot be received.