Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1033 (AP)

P. Sreedhar Babu v. Government Of Andhra Pradesh

2024-08-08

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2024
ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not extending the Principles laid down by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.16002 of 2019, dated 19.02.2020 in not regularizing the services of Lab Attendants, who appointed against the post of Lab Technicians Grade-II with effect from the date of appointment notionally as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and further direct the respondents that petitioners are entitled to similar benefit given to others by regularizing their service as Lab Technicians with all consequential monitory benefits and pass such other orders….” 2. The precise case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Lab Attendants against the Lab Technician Grade-II posts in various Medical Health Centres of Ananthapuram under rule 10(a)(1)9i) of A.P.State and Subordinate Rules (in short ‘the Rules’) on the regular pay scale of pay attached to the post of Lab Attendant vide proceedings in Rc.No. 947/C3/95, dated 28.09.1995 on temporary basis. The petitioners undergone training and passed examination and obtained the Lab Technician Certificate. On submission of certificates, they were all absorbed as Lab Technicians vide proceedings dated 02.06.2009 of District Medical and Health Officer, Ananthapuram in time scale of pay and usual allowances and monitory benefits notionally from the date of their joining as Attendants and monetary benefit from the date of acquiring the Lab Technician Certificate. The learned Tribunal directed the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in O.A.No.546 of 2007 from the date of initial appointment as Lab Technicians Grade-II with all consequential benefits. Assailing the same, the Government preferred an appeal in W.P.No.16002 of 2010 and the same was dismissed by upholding the orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No.546 of 2007. Even though the services of the petitioners were absorbed in the post of Lab Technicians since 2001, their services were not regularized inspite of several representations. Hence, inaction of the respondents is questioned in this writ petition and requested to allow the same. 3. Heard Mr. C. Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-IV for the respondents. 4. Hence, inaction of the respondents is questioned in this writ petition and requested to allow the same. 3. Heard Mr. C. Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-IV for the respondents. 4. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contents urged in the writ petition and mainly contended that despite orders of the learned Tribunal in O.A.No.346 of 2007 dated 20.05.2009, the respondents could not made efforts to regularize the services of the Lab Technicians with all consequential benefits, which are provided to the similar benefits to the others. It is further contended that in similar circumstances of this case, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court dated 19.02.2020 in W.P.No.16002 of 2010, which was filed by the Government against some of the petitioners therein and the same was dismissed by confirming the order of the learned Tribunal in O.A.No. 546 of 2007, dated 10.03.2010. The said orders are squarely covered and same is applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, requested to consider the said aspects and pass similar orders in this writ petition also. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Services-IV for the respondents vehemently opposed to allow the writ petition and mainly contended that it is well settled principle of law that the person who acquires the qualification for holding a particular post, they are entitled for benefits such as regularization of service, probation declaration, seniority only from the date of acquiring qualification to hold the post. The petitioners without challenging the regularization and probation declaration proceedings issued in their favour vide proceedings dated 02.06.2009 they cannot seek declaration citing on par with others and the same cannot be treated as discrimination among them as the factual positions of the present case and the factual positions in W.P.No.16002 of 2009 are entire different. Hence, requested to dismiss the same. 6. Perused the record. 7. Upon perusal of the entire material available on record would show that in the present case, there are no complaints against the petitioners. In fact, they were given the pay scale of Lab Technicians Grade-II, annual increments, revised pay scales; and also special grade scales. Hence, requested to dismiss the same. 6. Perused the record. 7. Upon perusal of the entire material available on record would show that in the present case, there are no complaints against the petitioners. In fact, they were given the pay scale of Lab Technicians Grade-II, annual increments, revised pay scales; and also special grade scales. Even though, it is contended by the respondents that the petitioners have to acquire the qualification of Lab Technician Training Course within the period of probation of two years and as the petitioners did not obtain the Lab Technician Training within the specified period; they are not entitled for regularization from the date of their initial appointment. In fact, as already stated the petitioners were completed training and obtained certificates. Hence, it is deemed that the probation of the petitioners is extended till they acquired the required qualification, and ultimately, they acquired the qualification and as per Rule 18(b)(ii) of the General Rules, it is to be deemed that they have satisfactorily completed their probation with retrospective effect. 8. As per provisions under Rule 5, Annexure II Clause XI of statutory rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.565 (Medical and Health, dated 27.08.1979, reads as under: Class – XI 2. Lab Technician (i)…… (ii) Must possess a certificate of Certified Lab. Technician course or of recognized institutions shown in Annexure-II (or from any other institution recognized for the purpose by Government) : (Added by G.O.Ms.No.75, H.M. & F.W. (K-2) dated 17.2.1994) Provided, that, if a candidate with a certificate of a certified Lab, Technician is not available, a candidate with a certificate or Certified Lab Attendant may be appointed but he should pass the Certified Lab Technician Course within the period of the probation.” 9. This Court further observed that, it is well settled law that on completion of satisfactory period of probation, the confirmation would date back to the initial date of appointment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Dr. (Capt.) Akhouri Ramesh Chandra Sinha and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (1996) 2 SCC 20 ” held that on satisfactory completion of probation, confirmation dates back to the initial date of appointment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Dr. (Capt.) Akhouri Ramesh Chandra Sinha and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (1996) 2 SCC 20 ” held that on satisfactory completion of probation, confirmation dates back to the initial date of appointment. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be regularized in the category of Lab Technicians Grade-II from the date of their initial appointment and their probation is deemed to have been declared by invoking Rule 17(iii)(b) and 18(ii) of the General Rules, as they acquired the special qualification of Lab Technicians training during the deemed period of extension of probation. The same issue already decided by this Court in W.P.No.21829 of 2020 and batch, dated 12.07.2022. 10. In view of the foregoing reasons and in view of the submissions made by both the learned counsels, and in view of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above, this Courts feels that it is a fit case to allow the writ petition. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed, while directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as Lab Technicians with all consequential monitory benefits, within four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.