Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1469 (AP)

A. Narasimham v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-10-18

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2024
ORDER : K. Manmadha Rao, J. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief : “…..to declare the Memo bearing No. 1151935/IE/A1/2018, dated 19.02.2019 of the 1st respondent and continuing the petitioner as Part-Time Lab Attender for the last 27 years without regularizing his services as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Mandamus and consequently direct the Respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as Lab Attender in terms of Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi and others ( 2006(4) SCC 1 with effect from a due date i.e. on completion of 10 years of service with all consequential benefits and pass such other orders....” 2. Heard Mr. Ganta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. Ganta Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. P. Sudeepti, learned Assistant Government Pleader, Services-II for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that he was appointed as Lab Attender in Vocational Courses S&E, Government Junior College, Kondepi, Prakasam District with effect from 29.06.1993 by the 3rd respondent on consolidated salary of Rs.600/- per month in a sanctioned post vide G.O.Ms.No.383, dated 11.11.1992. The petitioner was extended minimum time scale from December, 2012 onwards and had been getting the same Minimum Time Scale even now. Though, the 3rd respondent sent proposals for consideration of regularization of services of the petitioner in the year 2003, but no action has been taken by the respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, the petitioner filed O.A.No.317 of 2018 and the learned Tribunal directed the petitioner to submit representation to the respondents, on such representation, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate order. Pursuant to the directions of learned Tribunal, the petitioner has submitted representation dated 14.03.2018 to the respondents, but the same was rejected stating that regularization of his services is not feasible for consideration as per G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 22.07.1997 as he has not completed 10 years of service by 25.11.1993, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is entitled for regularization of his service as he has been working since 1993. Hence the present writ petition came to be filed. 4. The petitioner is entitled for regularization of his service as he has been working since 1993. Hence the present writ petition came to be filed. 4. Per contra, the 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit, denying all material allegations made in the writ petition and mainly contended that the petitioner passed B.A at the time of his appointment and he is continuing as Part Time Lab Attender since 29.06.1993 in vocational course till his retirement (June-2021) in the Government Junior College, Kondepi on consolidated pay in terms of G.O.Ms.No.69, dated 03.09.2003. Subsequently sanctioned Minimum Time Scale to the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.274, dated 12.11.2008. It is further contended that as per Section 7 of the Act No.2 of 1994, there is a bar on regularization of services, which reads as : “7. Bar for Regularization of services- No persons who is a daily wage employee and No person who is appointed as temporary basis under Section 3 and he is continuing him as such at the commencement of this Act shall have or shall be deemed ever to have a right to claim for regularization of services on any ground whatsoever and the services of such person shall be liable to be terminated at any time without any notice assigning any reason”. 5. It is further contended that as per Uma Devi’s case at Para 44 clearly stated that is one time measure for regularize the 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 courts or of tribunals. It is further contended that as per Uma Devi’s case, the respondents have already been taken before its judgment has issued G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 23.07.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. Therefore, taking one time measure for second time is not tenable. In the instant case, the petitioner is seeking the relief of extending one time measure for second time. Pursuant to the directions of the learned Tribunal, the petitioner has submitted a representation, the 1st respondent in turn has considered and rejected the appeal of the petitioner vide Memo dated 19.02.2019 as he has not fulfilled the conditions as per G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 27.07.1997. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief in this writ petition and requested to dismiss the same. 6. Perused the record. 7. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief in this writ petition and requested to dismiss the same. 6. Perused the record. 7. As per impugned Memo dated 19.02.2019 would show that the case of the petitioner for regularization of his service is not feasible for consideration as per G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 22.07.1997 as he has not completed 10 years of service by 25.11.1993 and hence rejected his appeal. The learned Tribunal while dispose of the case in O.A.No.317 of 2018, held that the counsel for the petitioner therein submitted that as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and Others”, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the case of the employees though not governed by other scheme of regularization existing, Government should take steps to regularize the services of those employees working in sanctioned posts without the intervention of the Courts. Therefore directed the petitioner to submit fresh representation to the respondents for consideration, but the 1st respondent considered the same and rejected the claim of the petitioner, hence this writ petition. 8. The petitioner has joined in service on part time basis on 29.06.1993 and completed four months only as on cut-off date i.e. 25.11.1993, so that the petitioner is not entitled for regularization. Further, the learned Assistant Government Pleaders for the respondents contended that before pronouncement of judgment in Uma Devi’s case, one time measure was duly sanctioned by issuing G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 23.07.1997. Therefore, taking one time measure for second time by the petitioner is not tenable. However, the petitioner has been appointed on consolidated pay against the sanctioned post vide G.O.Ms.No.383, dated 11.11.1992 and working since 1993 in Government Junior College, Kondepi and allowed him to draw Minimum Time Scale. But his case is not considered for regularization by the respondents, which is in dispute in this writ petition. The Government also issued G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 05.03.2011 as per Clause 4 clearly stated that the Government accorded permission to allow the corresponding Minimum Time Scale i.e. Basic + DA in Revised Pay Scales, 2010 to Vocational Lab Attenders working in Government Junior Colleges in the State without any other benefits as per Revised Pay Scales, 2010 with prospective effect i.e date of issue of said order and extension of Minimum Time Scale shall not confer any right for regularization of their services. Therefore the respondents rejected the request of the petitioner for regularization of service of the petitioner in the instant case. 9. As could be seen from the material on record, the petitioner has been working since 1993 in clear sanctioned post and the State is extracting the work from the petitioner by merely paying minimum time scale. Further, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for regularization of his services on completion of service from 1993 i.e by 2003 as per directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and consequently he is entitled to be paid regular pay scale from 2003 onwards on regularizing of his services. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is seeking regularization of his services with effect from a due date i.e 2003 with all consequential benefits on completion of 10 years of service. 10. The respondents in its counter affidavit stated that the petitioner has availed one time measure before pronouncement of judgment in the case of Uma Devi (supra), therefore the petitioner cannot seek one time measure again second time. The respondent has not explained when the petitioner has obtained one time measure and how he is entitled to, which is silent in the counter-affidavit. Therefore, the respondents failed to explain proper reasons to substantiate their case. Once the petitioner post is a sanctioned post and permitted to draw the Minimum Time Scale, automatically the petitioner is also entitled for regularization in the vacant position as and when arises, subject to completion of 10 years of service as per Uma Devi’s case (supra). In the instant case, the petitioner is eligible for regularization of his service. Hence, it is a fit case to allow the writ petition. 11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, while declaring the impugned Memo dated 19.02.2019 of the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and same is hereby set aside. It is further directed the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as Lab Attender with effect from a due date i.e. 2003 with all consequential benefits on completion of 10 years of service. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.