Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 236 (AP)

P. Narayana v. Chairman And Managind Director

2023-01-30

HARINATH NUNEPALLY

body2023
JUDGMENT HARINATH.N, J. - The petitioners are aggrieved by the denial of service benefits from January, 2000 and claim for a direction to the respondents to extend the service benefits from the January, 2000 instead of February, 2010. 2. The petitioners were engaged as watch and ward personals in the electricity stores in the year 1989. The petitioners initially worked as daily wage employees and thereafter they were treated as contract workers. The petitioners approached this Court seeking regularization of their service. The petitioners writ petition was dismissed and writ appeal No.1478 of 1999 was filed. This Court vide order dtd. 15/10/1999 directed the respondents to consider the case of petitioners for absorption within a period of three months from the date of the order. The respondents carried the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and filed SLP.Civil.No.2392 of 2000, which was dismissed on 19/12/2003. 3. The respondents failed to get any relief from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioners filed CC.No.594 of 2004 and on the undertaking of the respondents that the services of the petitioners would be regularized as and when vacancies arise, the contempt case was closed on 19/12/2004. 4. The petitioners filed SLP.Civil NO.74 of 2004 aggrieved against the closure of the contempt case CC.594 of 2004. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the respondents to implement the orders passed in WA.No.1478 of 1999. The respondents in compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have issued proceedings dtd. 8/2/2010 regularizing the services of the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners are entitled for regularization within a period of three months from the date of order passed in WA.No.1478 of 1999 and it was on account of the respondents litigatious attitude. There has been a delay of above 10 years in regularizing the services of the petitioners and as such claim for regularization and consequential service benefits from January, 2000. 5. The respondents have filed counter submitting that the respondents have exhausted the available legal remedies and put-forth their stand in defence of the policy decision of the respondents. 6. It is submitted that the petitioners cannot claim for regularization of their services with effect from January, 2000 as by that date the respondents had taken a decision to prefer appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and their right to appeal cannot be questioned. 7. 6. It is submitted that the petitioners cannot claim for regularization of their services with effect from January, 2000 as by that date the respondents had taken a decision to prefer appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and their right to appeal cannot be questioned. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP.No.2392 of 2000 has initially stayed the order of the Division Bench, however, the SLP was dismissed on 19/12/2003. It is also submitted that for absorption of the petitioners into services vacancies should be available and the same was informed to the Court that the respondents intended to regularize the services of the petitioners as and when the vacancies arise and CC.No.594 of 2004 was closed. 8. The respondents submit that the orders of appointment of the petitioners were issued on 8/2/2010 and as such they cannot claim for regularization of their services before the litigation attained finality. 9. Considering the submissions of the learned counsels for the petitioners and the respondents, the claim of the petitioners for regularization and grant of service benefits from January, 2000 cannot be granted by this Court. Admittedly, the order of appointment/order of absorption is passed on 8/2/2010. 10. The petitioners cannot claim for any service benefits as applicable and due payable to the regular employee from any date prior to their regularization. The services of the petitioners as regular employees has been recognized only on 8/2/2010, as such the claim of the petitioners for regularization and service benefits in pursuance of the orders passed in WA.No.1478 of 1999 cannot be granted. 11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed.