Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1003 (AP)

Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam v. M. V. Asha Rani

2024-08-07

G.NARENDAR, KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

body2024
JUDGMENT : G. Narendar, J. Heard Sri S.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri S.N. Chidambara Sastry, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant; Ms. Steffe, learned counsel representing Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner; and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 2. The present writ appeal is directed against the order dated 25.01.2023 rendered by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.23557 of 2009. 3. The abovementioned writ petition was preferred by respondent No.1 herein for the following relief : “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction; more particularly, one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus by setting aside that portion of G.O.Ms.No.2500 dated 20.11.2007 issued by the 2nd Respondent and consequential proceedings Roc.No.D4/1582/DEO/2004, dated 30.08.2008 issued by the 1st Respondent in regularizing the Petitioner in last grade service, that too with effect from 20.11.2007 by holding the action of the Respondents in not regularizing the Petitioner with effect from 20.11.1990 as Store Keeper, the post and work the Petitioner was holding since her appointment while regularizing several others/juniors in the cadre of they were working and with effect from their initial date of appointment as bad, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents to regularize the service of Petitioner as Store Keeper with effect from 20.11.1990 and not doing so as bad, illegal, unconstitutional and discriminatory and pass such other order or further orders as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 4. By the order under appeal, the learned single Judge has been pleased to dispose of the writ petition as under : “In view of the aforesaid reasoning, this Court found that the petitioner is entitled for regularisation of her services as Storekeeper, in Sri Padmavathi Women’s Polytechnic Hostel, Tirupathi, in the pay scales attached to the said post from the date of her initial appointment i.e., 20.11.1990. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of her services in the post of store keeper in the pay scale attached to the post from the date of her initial appointment i.e., 20.11.1990 and fix her pay notionally till regularising her services i.e., 20.11.2007 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.2500 and from 20.11.2007 the petitioner is entitled for all monetary and attendant benefits. The respondents shall complete the above exercise within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the learned single Judge erred in granting a Mandamus directing regularization of the services of the writ petitioner from the date of her initial appointment. He would submit that the learned single Judge, having not considered the merits of the matter, could not have granted such relief. 6. We have perused the relief granted. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the writ petitioner has been seeking for consideration of her prayer i.e., for regularization of her services from an anterior date, which the appellant has failed to accede to. It is seen that the learned single Judge has not entered upon the merits of the claim of the writ petitioner much less made any assessment as to whether the other workers with whom the writ petitioner was seeking parity are indeed juniors or whether the terms of employment of those other workers are similar to the terms of employment of the writ petitioner. These are facts that are required to be ascertained before any relief for regularization of services from an anterior date could have been granted. 7. Be that as it may, the law in this regard is no more res integra as the Hon’ble Apex Court has already considered the scope and ambit of the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (Act 2 of 1994) and G.Os. issued under the said Act. 7. Be that as it may, the law in this regard is no more res integra as the Hon’ble Apex Court has already considered the scope and ambit of the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (Act 2 of 1994) and G.Os. issued under the said Act. Under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 issued in pursuance of the Act 2 of 1994, the State Government had brought a scheme, whereby the employees who have been employed continuously for a period of five years prior to the appointed date i.e., 25.11.1993 and further continued in employment on the appointed date alone were entitled to have their services regularized subject to certain conditions. 8. Apparently, in the case of the instant writ petitioner, her services were engaged only in the year 1990. While the writ petitioner claims that she was engaged as a Store Keeper, it is the contention of the appellant that she was engaged as such by the hostel committee constituted for the maintenance of hostel with the establishment charges collected from the students, but not by the Devasthanam. In that view, it was incumbent upon the writ petitioner to demonstrate a right as recognized by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, after analysing the entire gamut of the constitutional provisions, has been pleased to lay down and settle the law with regard to regularization of services of such employees who have been employed on ad hoc, temporary etc. terms and who have continued in the employment for a period in excess of ten years and, that too, without the aid of Court orders. In that view, we are of the considered opinion that the instant writ appeal requires to be allowed in part by setting aside the order under appeal and directing the appellant to consider and examine the claim of the writ petitioner in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uma Devi’s case and also in the case of Manjula Bhashini v. Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited, (2009) 8 SCC 431 . 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 25.01.2023 passed in W.P.No.23557 of 2009 is hereby set aside. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 25.01.2023 passed in W.P.No.23557 of 2009 is hereby set aside. The writ petitioner/respondent No.1 is directed to submit a comprehensive representation detailing the terms of her engagement/employment and also placing on record such other material particulars relating to her employment, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such comprehensive representation, the appellant shall consider and dispose of the same, keeping in mind the law as settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uma Devi’s case and Manjula Bhashini’s case and strictly in terms thereof. 10. It is, however, made clear that the decision of the appellant shall not in any manner affect the regularization of the services of the writ petitioner under the proceedings dated 30.08.2008. The consideration and disposal of the representation shall be within an outer limit of three months commencing from the date of receipt of representation. 11. The writ appeal stands ordered accordingly. As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.