Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 337 (AP)

B. v. R. Prasad VS District Panchayat Officer

2023-02-07

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2023
ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “........to declare the entire action of the respondents herein in not regularizing the services of the applicants inspite of fulfilling conditions laid in G.O.Ms. No. 212 Fin and Plang (FW PC-III) Department, dated 22.04.1994 and not releasing periodical annual grade increments and PRC benefits from time to time as highly illegal arbitrary unjust improper contrary to their own orders including contrary to various judicial pronouncements in the subject matter and consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith regularize the service of the applicants in the cadre of Bill collectors or in equallent posts w e f the day on which they completed 5 years of service as per G.O.Ms. No. 212 Fin and Plang (FW PC-III) Department, dated 22.04.1994 with all consequential benefits such as pay fixation seniority and other allied benefits including PRC benefits etc and pass such other order or orders......” 2. Brief facts of the case are that initially the petitioners were appointed as part time bill Collectors against the sanctioned posts during the years 1984 to 1989. Subsequently, the 1st respondent had issued proceedings vide Roc. No. 4402/95/Pts.I dated 19.08.1996, wherein the petitioners services were absorbed from the post of Part time Junior Assistant cum-Bill Collectors to that of full time post of bill Collectors. Since then they were discharging their duties without any complaints from whomsoever. It is stated that even though they were appointed against the vacancies and despite of absorbing their services as full time bill collectors with valid proceedings and also fixed time scale of pay attached to the posts, but the respondents have not releasing the periodical increments and also not revising the pay of the petitioners according to PRC recommendations from time to time. The action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners in the cadre of Bill Collectors or in equallent posts despite of fulfilling conditions laid down in G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22.4.1994 and also not releasing periodical annual grade increments and PRC benefits, despite of discharging regular service to that of regular employees is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. No. 212 dated 22.4.1994 and also not releasing periodical annual grade increments and PRC benefits, despite of discharging regular service to that of regular employees is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition and contended that the petitioners who are working on part time basis in various Gram Panchayats were appointed on regular time scale subject to condition that the same should be ratified by the Government has required G.O.Ms. No. 212 Finance Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.994 as the petitioners herein have completed 5 years of service as on 25.11.1993. As the petitioners were appointed into full time post under the rules vide G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated 22.04.1994, in the meantime, the Government have formulated a scheme for regularization of services of part time employees who have completed 10 years of service prior to cut off day of 25.11.1993 are eligible for regularization vide G.O.Ms. No. 112, F&P, dated 23.07.1997. Basing on the above said G.O. proposals were submitted to the Government for regularization of services those who have completed 10 years of service as on 25.11.1993. Accordingly, the Government have regularized the services those whose have completed 10 years of service. However, the services of the petitioners were not regularized under Rules vide G.O. (P) No. 112 F&P Department, dated 23.07.1997 as the petitioners herein have not completed 10 years of services as on 25.11.1993. 4. Heard Sri Santhapur Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services-IV appearing for the respondents. 5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents made in the petition contended that though the petitioners were appointed against the vacancies and despite of absorbing their services as full time Bill Collectors with valid proceedings and also fixed time scale of pay attached to posts, but the respondents have not releasing periodical increments and also not revising the pay of the petitioners according to PRC recommendations from time to time and on that sole ground their services were not regularized is highly illegal. He further submits that the petitioners have put up more than 27 years regular service in respective cadre and discharging their duties sincerely with a fond hope that the respondents will regularize their services, but in spite of repeated requests, not taking any steps for regularizing their services and not releasing periodical annual grade increments and PRC benefits to the petitioners, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, learned counsel sought relief as stated supra. 6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader while reiterating the averments made in the counter and contended that basing on the G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated 22.04.1994 the Government have sent the proposals to the Government for regularization of services those who have completed 10 years of service as on 25.11.1993 in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 112, F&P Department, dated 23.07.1997 and the Government in G.O.Rt.No. 1977, PR & RD (Estt.IV) Department, dated 26.11.2005 and G.O.Rt.No. 1978 PR&RD (Estt-IV) Department, dated 26.11.2005 have regularized the services of only 15 bill Collectors and 21 Class-IV employees in terms of rules issued in G.O.Ms. No. 112 F&P Department, dated 23.07.1997 and let out (25) persons, though they have completed 10 years of service as on 25.11.1993 as they did not possess requisite qualifications and the petitioners are one of them. He further submits that after scrutiny of the proposals, the Government, PR&RD, Hyderabad have issued a Memo vide No. 119622/E.IV.A1/2003-16, dated 26.11.2005 requested the DPO, Krishna to issue speaking orders and accordingly speaking orders were issued to the ineligible persons vide proceedings dated 13.12.2005. 7. In a case of U.V.S.R. Prasad and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2018 (2) ALD 282 (DB) wherein a Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, held that: 10. From the material discussed above and the admissions made in the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 2, it is not in dispute that the petitioners have been working as Work Inspectors from the years 1990 1992. It is also not in dispute that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) was rendered in the year 1996, they have completed more than 10 years of service. Para 53 of the Judgment in Uma Devi (supra) reads as under: One aspect needs to be clarified. It is also not in dispute that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) was rendered in the year 1996, they have completed more than 10 years of service. Para 53 of the Judgment in Uma Devi (supra) reads as under: 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 , R.N. Nanjundappa, 1972 (1) SCC 409 and B.N. Nagarajan, 1979 (4) SCC 507 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 for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles 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 regularize 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. 15. Concededly, the Supreme Court in A. Manjula Bhashini (supra) has not referred to the judgment in Uma Devi (supra). Thus, in our opinion, the directions given in Para 53 of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) and the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 along with its amendments and the judgment in A. Manjula Bhashini (supra) operate in different situations. 16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated 22-04-1994, were in existence. 16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated 22-04-1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of persons, who entered service through backdoors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for onetime absorption/regularization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated 22-04-1994, while giving directions in Para No. 53 of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regularization/absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated 22.04.1994, do not whittle down the width and the judgment in Manjula Bashini (supra) does not lower the trajectory of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Para 53 of its judgment in Uma Devi (supra). It is, therefore, not permissible for the respondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated 22-04-1994, to deny regularization to the petitioners, who have, admittedly, satisfied the criteria laid down in Para No. 53 of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra). 8. It is pertinent to mention here that, in a case of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: One aspect needs to be clarified. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that, in a case of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore and Another vs. Narayanappa, 1967 (1) SCR 128 , R.N. Nanjundappa vs. T. Thimmiah and Another, 1972 (1) SCC 409 and B.N. Nagarjan and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 1979 (4) SCC 507 and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles 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 regularize 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 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. 9. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners have put up more than 27 years of regular service in respective cadre and discharging their duties sincerely with fond hope that the respondents will be regularized their services. However, in spite of repeated requests they have not taken any steps for regularizing their services and other way under ignorance of law not releasing periodical annual grade increments and PRC benefits to the petitioners. 10. However, in spite of repeated requests they have not taken any steps for regularizing their services and other way under ignorance of law not releasing periodical annual grade increments and PRC benefits to the petitioners. 10. This Court observed that this Court in several cases was directed the authorities to release periodical annual grade increments DA including PRC benefits even to the NMR/consolidated pay and full time contingent employees whose pay is fixed in the minimum time scale of pay attached to the posts along with various persons the day on which their minimum time scale is fixed, pending regularization. The question of releasing of periodical increments to the persons whose pay was fixed in the minimum time scale attached to the posts, subject to pending regularization of respective employees services was also came up before the Tribunal vide OA No. 7195 of 2002 wherein the Tribunal has held that the petitioners therein who worked as NMR in the respective organization and whose pay was fixed in the minimum time scale were eligible for periodical increments. In fact, the said order was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 27214 of 2005, dated 23.08.2006 and the similar order was also passed by another Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 15.031 of 2006, dated 23.08.2006. 11. In view of the foregoing reasons, viewed from any angle, the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners in spite of fulfilling conditions laid down in G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22.04.1994 and not releasing periodical annual grade increments and PRC benefits from time to time is declared as illegal and arbitrary. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services in the cadre of Bill Collectors or in equivalent posts w.e.f. the day on which they completed 5 years of service as per G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22.04.1994 subject to their satisfying the criteria laid down in Umadevi’s Case (supra). The entire exercise shall be completed within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.