Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 148 (TS)

E. M. Chandra Sekhar Reddy v. State of Telangana

2025-03-20

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER : Surepalli Nanda, J. Heard Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “…….to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in damage of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not granting pension and retiremental benefits by granting retrospective regularization from the date of completion of 5 years of service as per the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6318/2015, dt 17/8/2015 the same has been follows by this Honourable Court in WP. No. 33936/2011 and Batch dt 2/5/2018 Reported in 2018 (4) ALT 6 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to sanction and pay the pension and retiremental benefits as per the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6318/2015, dt 17/8/2015 the same has been follows by this Honourable Court in WP. No. 33936/2011 and Batch dt 2/5/2018 Reported in 2018 (4) ALT 6 and pass.….” 3. It is the specific grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Bill collector on daily wage basis on 05.01.1987 in erstwhile Alwal municipality which subsequently merged into Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad in the year 2007. Thereafter the government issued GOMs.No.533,MA and UD dated 29.11.2011 regularizing the services of the petitioner prospectively but not retrospectively from the date of completion of 5 years of daily wage service by the petitioner herein. The petitioner further submits that in similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Srinivasulu and others vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation held that daily wage workers who were regularized are entitled to retrospective regularization from the date of completion of 5 years for the purpose of seniority and other benefits and Andhra Pradesh government had implemented the directions given by Hon’ble Supreme Court but the respondents herein however did not implement the said directions. The petitioner further submits that this Hon’ble High Court at Hyderabad by relying on Srinivasulu and others vs Nellore Municipal Corporation directed the respondents to implement the retrospective regularization of service for the purpose of seniority, pension and other benefits but respondents are not implementing the above directions by citing that the Srinivasulu and others vs Nellore Municipal Corporation dated 17.08.2015 relied on M.L.Singh case judgment had been overruled by the Apex court in Manjula Bashini case reported in 2009 (4) SCC 431. Aggrieved by said action of the respondents, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present Writ Petition. PERUSED THE RECORD:- 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition in view of the fact as borne on record that the said relief as sought for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition had been granted by the Division Bench of this Court vide its order, dated 06.03.2017 passed in W.P.No. 41797 of 2015 in respect of other individuals similarly situated persons like the petitioner herein and the said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 06.03.2017 passed in W.P.No.41797 of 2015 had been upheld by the Apex Court in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner & Ors. Vs. P.Lingamma and Others vide its judgment, dated 23.07.2024 in SLP. No.13813 of 2018 and therefore, the petitioner herein is entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that as per law laid down by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015, dated 17.08.2015 which had been followed by this Court in W.P.Nos. 33936 of 2011 and batch, dated 02.05.2018 reported in 2018 (4) ALT 6 , the petitioner cannot be denied relief as prayed for in the present Writ Petition in respect of the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension and reitremental benefits by granting retrospective regularization from the date of completion of five (05) years of service. 6. 33936 of 2011 and batch, dated 02.05.2018 reported in 2018 (4) ALT 6 , the petitioner cannot be denied relief as prayed for in the present Writ Petition in respect of the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension and reitremental benefits by granting retrospective regularization from the date of completion of five (05) years of service. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired on 30.06.2013 as Bill Collector and since, the pension is continuous cause of action and since the said relief was extended for similarly situated persons, the petitioner approached this Court soon after obtaining knowledge, however the relief extended to similarly situated persons had been refused to the petitioner in the present Writ Petition on the ground that petitioner approached the Court by filing the present Writ Petition after seven years after petitioner’s retirement. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand submits that the petitioner had not been diligent in approaching this Court promptly. 8. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents in support of his submission placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 03.02.2025 passed in W.P.No. 36516 of 2024 and contended that in view of the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court for the relief prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ Petition, the Present writ petition need to be dismissed in limini. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- 9. The relevant portion of the judgment, dated 06.03.2017 passed in W.P.No.41797 of 2015 is extracted hereunder:- “ In the light of this authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court, as recently as in August, 2015, on the issue of regularization of services under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, we have no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal erred in denying relief to the petitioners herein insofar as their claim for regularization from an anterior date was concerned. They would therefore be entitled to regularization of their services from the date they completed five years of service but would not be entitled to any monetary benefits in terms of arrears of pay. They would however be eligible for notional fixation of pay and seniority. 10. They would therefore be entitled to regularization of their services from the date they completed five years of service but would not be entitled to any monetary benefits in terms of arrears of pay. They would however be eligible for notional fixation of pay and seniority. 10. The Division Bench of this Court in its judgment, reported in 2018(4) ALT 6 in W.P.No.33936/ 2011 & batch, dated 02.05.2018 in Government of A.P. represented by its Principal Secretary, PR and RD Department, Hyderabad and others Vs. N. Venkaiah and Others, dealing with the case of the regularization of the services and referring to the aspect of the delay observed as under:- “ We find it difficult to accept the reasoning adopted by the High Court. The right of the appellants to seek regularization flows from the G.O.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. The appellant have been in service of the first respondent not only prior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subseqeutn to the issue of G.O. till today. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O.212(supra). I n spite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularizing the services of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellant. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants’ services be regularized with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/ Chairperson and others Vs. M.L.Singh and others (2009) 8 SCC 480 . The appeal is accordingly disposed of.” 11. Prayer sought for by similarly situated persons like the petitioner in W.P.No.9024 of 2017 is extracted hereunder:- “…….to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring that the petitioners are entitled for regularization from the date of completion of 5 years of service if necessary by setting aside he GORt.No.97, MA, dt 29.2.2016 only to the extent of prospective regularization instead of regularization from the date of completion of 5 years for the purpose of seniority as held by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6318/2015 dt 17. 8.2015 and as per the judgment of this Honble Court in WP 20635/2012 dt 31.1.2017 and pass such other order or orders as this Honble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case…” 12. Para No.13 of the judgment dated 13.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.9024 of 2017 is extracted hereunder:- 13. Taking into consideration all the above referred facts and circumstances and the law laid down in the various judgments referred to and discussed above, the writ petition is allowed declaring that the petitioners are entitled for regularization from the date of completion of five years of service and he impugned G.O.Rt.No.97 MA, dated 29.02.2016 is set aside only to the extent of prospective regualarize the service of the petitioners from date of completion of five years for the purpose of seniority as held by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015, dated 17.08.2015 and as per the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.20635 of 2012, dated 31.01.2017, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duly taking into consideration the law laid down by the various judgments referred to and extracted above. It is however, made clear that the petitioners shall not be entitled to the monetary benefits for the said period in the form of arrears of pay or allowances and the respondents are directed to extend the benefit extended in case of B.Srinivasulu vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation to the petitioners by regularizing their services from the date of completion of five years of their services for the purpose of their seniority pension and other pensionary benefits. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 13. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the fact that the present relief had been extended to similarly situated persons, but on the only ground that the petitioner approached this Court after long lapse of time after petitioner’s regularization, the learned Government Pleader for Services-I contends that petitioner herein is not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present Writ Petition. 14. 14. A bare perusal of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 & 4 indicates that the services of the petitioner had been regularized vide proceedings of the 3 rd respondent dated 12.01.2012 and petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. 15. This Court opines that the petitioner cannot be denied the relief as extended to other similarly situated persons on the ground of delay since delay cannot defeat equity when issue pertains to infringement of petitioner’s fundamental rights. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 232 in Sunil Kumar Rai & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others dt. 21.02.2022 at Paras 7, 8, 10, 11, observed as under : Para 7: Article 32 of the Constitution provides for a Fundamental Right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of the Fundamental Rights. The founding fathers contemplated that the very right to approach this Court when there is a violation of Fundamental Rights, should be declared as beyond the reach of Parliament and, therefore, it is as a part of judicial review that the right under Article 32 has been put in place and invoked from time to time. That in a given case, the Court may refuse to entertain a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is solely a part of self- restraint which is exercised by the Court having regard to various considerations which are germane to the interest of justice as also the appropriateness of the Court to interfere in a particular case. The right under Article 32 of the Constitution remains a Fundamental Right and it is always open to a person complaining of violation of Fundamental Rights to approach this Court. This is, no doubt, subject to the power of the Court to relegate the party to other proceedings. Para 8 : At the heart of the Constitution lies certain principles which have, in fact, been recognised as part of the basic structure. Article 14 of the Constitution proclaims right to equality. The right against unfair State action is part of Article 14. Unequals being treated equally is tabooed under Article 14 of the Constitution. Para 8 : At the heart of the Constitution lies certain principles which have, in fact, been recognised as part of the basic structure. Article 14 of the Constitution proclaims right to equality. The right against unfair State action is part of Article 14. Unequals being treated equally is tabooed under Article 14 of the Constitution. A person entitled to be treated as a member of Scheduled Tribe under Article 342, cannot be treated on par with a person who is brought in by an incompetent Body, viz., the State in the manner done. Article 21 of the Constitution again is the fountain head of many rights which are part of the grand mandate which has been from time to time unravelled by this Court giving rise to the theory of unenumerated rights under the Constitution. While liberty is a dynamic concept capable of encompassing within it a variety of Rights, the irreducible minimum and at the very core of liberty, is freedom from unjustifiable custody. 10. We may take up the first preliminary objection by the State, namely, that the petitioners have approached this Court with considerable delay. The impugned Notification is issued in August, 2016. A person cannot be said to be aggrieved merely upon the issuance of an instrument or of a law by itself. In fact, the Court may refuse to examine the legality or the validity of a law or order on the basis that he may have no locus standi or that he is not an aggrieved person. No doubt, the Courts have recognized challenge to even a legislation at the hands of a public interest litigant. However, we may only indicate, ordinarily, the Court may insist on a cause of action and therefore, a person must be an aggrieved party to maintain a challenge. We must not be oblivious to the fact that based on the Notification, it appears that FIRs came to be lodged by persons claiming to be members of the Scheduled Tribe community and seeking to invoke the 1989 Act. The FIRs lodged in the year 2020 occasioned the petitioners to approach Courts seeking protection under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Two of the petitioners have not secured such protection. Petitioner No. 1, it appears was not arrested. The FIRs lodged in the year 2020 occasioned the petitioners to approach Courts seeking protection under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Two of the petitioners have not secured such protection. Petitioner No. 1, it appears was not arrested. But even assuming for a moment, that the petitioners have come with some delay, we find reassurance from the opinion of this Court in the judgment reported in Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha v. Union of India (2015) 3 SCC 1 , wherein this Court has inter alia held as follows:— 32. “ …..Further, in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., it has now been conclusively held that all fundamental rights cannot be waived (at para 29). Given these important developments in the law, the time has come for this Court to say that at least when it comes to violations of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, delay or laches by itself without more would not be sufficient to shut the doors of the court on any petitioner.” 11. Therefore, we do not think we should be detained by the objection. We would think that delay by itself cannot be used as a weapon to Veto an action under Article 32 when violation of Fundamental Rights is clearly at stake. 16. Taking into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services-I , appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The judgment of this Court, in Government of A.P. representing by its Principal Secretary, PR and RD Department, Hyderabad and others Vs. N.Venkaiah and others, dated 02.05.2018 passed in W.P.Ns. 33936 of 2011 & batch reported in 2018 (4) ALT page 6. (referred to and extracted above) d) The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 06.03.2017 passed in W.P.No.41797 of 2015 which had been upheld by the Apex Court in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner & Ors. Vs. P.Lingamma and Others vide its judgment, dated 23.07.2024 in SlP.No.13813 of 2018 (referred to and extracted above) e) The judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015, dated 07.08.2015. f) The Apex Court judgment reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 232 in Sunil Kumar Rai & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others. Vs. P.Lingamma and Others vide its judgment, dated 23.07.2024 in SlP.No.13813 of 2018 (referred to and extracted above) e) The judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015, dated 07.08.2015. f) The Apex Court judgment reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 232 in Sunil Kumar Rai & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others. The Writ petition is allow ed as prayed for, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for granting pension and retiremental benefits by granting retrospective regularization from the date of completion of five (05) years, duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above) and all other judgments through which the said relief had been extended to similarly situated persons like the petitioner (referred to and extracted above) within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.