Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 149 (TS)

K. Lakshmamma 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 petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “…….to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by calling for the records relating to the Proc Roc. No. 299626/2021/A3 dt 19/3/2021 issued by the 3rd respondent and set aside the same by declaring as illegal, arbitrary, and voilative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to grant retrospective regularization from the date of completion of ‘5’ years for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015 dt 17.08.2015 has followed by this Honourable Supreme Court in WP. No. 33936 of 2011 and Batch Reported in 2018 4 ALT Page 6 with a direction to pay pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioners of deceased employees and pass.….” 3. The specific grievance of the petitioners is that both the petitioners husbands(Diseased) were appointed as PH workers on NMR basis in the year 1986. Thereafter petitioners husbands along with other workers filed OA. No.38/2006 before the Hon’ble AP Administrative Tribunal for the regularization of services which was dismissed by order dated 09.06.2008 but the same order was set aside by this composite AP High Court in the W.P.No.11902/2009 preferred by petitioners husbands and court was pleased to direct the respondents to reconsider the request of the petitioners husbands for regularization. Thereafter government had issued GO.Rt.No.1229 MA & UD dated 3.08.2013 regularizing their services prospectively, but not retrospectively from the date of completion of ‘5’ years of daily wage service, for the purpose of seniority, pension and other benefits even after extracting the service from the petitioners similar to regular workers i.e., 8 hours per day. It is further the case of the petitioners that in similar circumstances, the Apex Court in Srinivasulu and others vs Nellore Municipal Corporations held that daily wage workers who were regularized are entitled to retrospective regularization i.e., from the date of completion of ‘5’ years as temporary worker, for the purpose of seniority and other benefits and Andhra Pradesh government had implemented the directions given by Apex Court but same is not being followed by the respondents herein. It is further the case of the petitioners that this Hon’ble High Court 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 Apex Court in Srinivasulu and others vs Nellore Municipal Corporation dated 17.08.2015 relied on M.L.Singh case judgement which was overruled by the Apex court in Manjula Bashini case reported in 2009 (4) SCC 431 . Aggrieved by said action of the respondents, the petitioners approached the Court by filing the present Writ Petition. PERUSED THE RECORD:- 4. The petitioners herein in the present Writ Petition are the wives of the deceased employees, i.e., petitioner Nos. 5 & 6 in W.P.(TR) No.2432 of 2017, on earlier occasion, employees i.e., the husbands of the petitioners herein, the petitioner Nos. 5 & 6 in W.P.(TR) No.2432 of 2017 approached this Court seeking prayer as under:- “………to declare the action of the respondents in not counting the service rendered by the applicants on daily wage basis prior to regularization their services for qualifying service for calculating the pensionary benefits is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to count the service rendered by the applicants on daily wage basis prior to regularization of their services for the purpose of qualifying service for fixing the pension if necessary by setting aside the regularization orders issued vide G.O.Rt. No.1229 MA&UD dated 3.8.2013 only to the extent of prospective regularization in so far as the applicants are concerned and to pass such other order or orders 5. No.1229 MA&UD dated 3.8.2013 only to the extent of prospective regularization in so far as the applicants are concerned and to pass such other order or orders 5. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition vide its order, dated 29.04.2019 in WP(TR) No. 2432 of 2017 observing as under:- Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if a direction is given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services with retrospective effect from 25.11.1993 in terms of the Judgment reported in Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015, dated 17.8.2015, which was followed by this Court in W.P.No.33936 of 2011 and batch dated 2.5.2018 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that in pursuance to the orders of this Court, dated 29.04.2019 passed in W.P.(TR) No.2432 of 2017, the present impugned proceedings had been passed by the 3 rd respondent vide proceedings, Roc.No.299626/2021/A3, dated 19.03.2021 contrary to the observations and the specific directions issued in the orders of this Court, dated 29.04.2019 passed in W.P.(TR) No.2432 of 2017, which had attained finality and further, vide specific directions of this Court in the said Writ Petition, the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services with retrospective effect from 25.11.1993 in terms of the judgment reported in Civil Appeal No. 6318 of 2015, dated 17.08.2015 which was followed by this Court in W.P.Nos. 33936 of 2011 and batch, dated 02.05.2018 and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law, but however, neither the said orders had been considered nor the competent Authority had exercised its jurisdiction and the impugned proceedings had been passed by the 3 rd respondent i.e., The Commissioner & , Director of Municipal Administration, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad whereas it is the 1 st respondent who is the Authority competent take a decision in the above said subject issue. 7. 7. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015, dated 17.08.2015 is extracted hereunder:- “ 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 subsequent to the issue of G.O till today. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O.212(supra). In spite of the above mentioned G.O., the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularizing the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants. In the circumstances referring 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 followed 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 & Others Vs. M.L.Singh & Ors. 2009(8) SCC 480 . 8. The relevant portion of the judgment of this Court, dated 02.05.2018 passed in W.P.Nos. 33936 of 2011 & batch reported in 2018 (4) ALT page 6 is extracted hereunder:- 53. On the above analysis, the Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the authorities concerned to extend the benefit of B.Srinivasulu (supra) to the employees in th is batch of cases by reckoning their services from the date of completion of five years in service, on or before 25.11.1993, for the purpose of their pension and pensionary benefits. They shall however not be entitled to actual monetary benefits for the said period, in the form of arrears of pay or allowances. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the impugned proceedings, dated 19.03.2021 of the 3 rd respondent is totally contrary to the view of this Court in identical circumstances passed in W.P.Nos.33936 of 2011 and batch, dated 02.05.2018 reported in 2018 (4) ALT 6 and hence, the order impugned, dated 19.03.2021 passed by the 3 rd respondent needs to be set-aside and the present Writ Petition needs to be allowed as prayed for by the petitioners herein. 10. 10. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand submits that the 1 st respondent is the competent authority to pass the orders, duly implementing the earlier orders of this Court, dated 29.04.2019 passed in W.P.(T.R) No.2432 of 2017 and therefore, the matter could be remitted to the 1 st respondent for reconsideration of the subject issue in accordance to law within a reasonable period. 11. 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 order of this Court, dated 29.04.2019 passed in W.P. (T.R).No.2432 of 2017 (referred to and extracted above) d) The judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015, dated 17.08.2015.(referred to and extracted above). d) The judgment of this Court, dated 02.05.2018 passed in W.P.Nos. 33936 of 2011 & batch reported in 2018 (4) ALT page 6 (referred to and extracted above). The Writ Petition is allow ed, the impugned Proceedings Roc. No.299626/2021/a3, dated 19.03.2021 issued by the 3 rd respondent is set-aside, the subject issue is remitted to the 1 st respondent herein to take a decision afresh in the matter, duly taking into consideration the specific directions of this Court, vide its order dated 29.04.2019 passed in W.P.(T.R).No.2432 of 2017 (referred to and extracted above) and also the judgment of the Apex Court, dated 17.08.2015 passed in Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015 and the order of this Court, dated 02.05.2018 passed in W.P.Nos. 33936 of 2011 & batch reported in 2018 (4) ALT page 6 (referred to and extracted above) within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order in accordance to law and pass appropriate orders and duly communicate the decision pertaining to grant of retrospective regularization from the date of completion of five (05) years for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioners. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.