Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 657 (AP)

R. Gangadhar v. Govt. of A. P. Law Dept.

2025-05-06

A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA, B.KRISHNA MOHAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : B. KRISHNA MOHAN, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II for the respondents. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the order of the erstwhile Tribunal in O.A.No.5077 of 2000 dated 01.08.2007. The petitioner sought for regularization of his service under G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning Department, dated 22.04.1994. The petitioner worked initially as contingent employee in the Government Degree College/ the 3 rd respondent as Attender. He worked initially between September, 1987 to 17.03.1995. Since his case was not considered under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, he approached the erstwhile Tribunal in O.A.No.469 of 1994 dated 04.04.1995: (a) The Tribunal in its order dated 04.04.1995 while disposing of the said O.A. directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner herein/applicant therein for the purpose of regularization as per G.O.Ms.212 dated 22.04.1994. In pursuance of the same, the 2 nd respondent passed the impugned proceedings dated 19.08.1999 which were assailed in a subsequent O.A.No.5077 of 2000 before the erstwhile Tribunal. The 2 nd respondent in his impugned proceedings dated 19.08.1999 observed that the persons who worked continuously for a minimum period of five years continuing as on 25.11.1993, their services will be regularized by the appointing authority subject to the fulfillment of conditions stipulated in the G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. He further observed that the petitioner was not appointed as Attender and he worked as casual labour on daily wages. He worked in the college from September 1987 to 17.03.1995 and though he was in service as on 25.11.1993, he was not appointed against a clear vacancy and he was permitted to work as Games Boy on consolidated pay from special fee funds. As there are no sanctioned posts in the college, the petitioner shall not be entitled as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 and as such his claim was rejected in pursuance of the orders of the erstwhile Tribunal dated 04.04.1995. (b) As stated supra, aggrieved by the said proceedings of the 2 nd respondent dated 19.08.1999, the petitioner by way of an applicant approached the erstwhile Tribunal again in O.A.No.5077 of 2000 which was dismissed solely on the ground that he was not in service with effect from 15.03.1995 and as such he was not entitled for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. 3. 3. As could be seen from the above said proceedings of the 2 nd respondent dated 19.08.1999 and the order of the erstwhile Tribunal dated 01.08.2007 there is a contrast between them in observing the service particulars of the petitioner/ applicant therein and the reasons assigned. It is not in dispute that the petitioner worked as daily wage earner in the 3 rd respondent college by attending the duties as “Games Boy” on a consolidated pay continuously as there was no dispute with respect to the duration of work between September, 1987 to 17.03.1995. Admittedly, G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 stipulates the cutoff date as 25.11.1993 for the purpose of reckoning the period of service of five years as on the date. Though much later to the said date, the services of the petitioner was terminated, still as he complied with the other conditions of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 with respect to the nature of employment and the period of employment as on the said cutoff date of 25.11.1993, the regularization of the petitioner cannot be negatived on the ground that much later to the said contingency, the petitioner’s services were not utilized later on and he was not allowed to work against the clear vacancy. Such grounds are not available for the authorities concerned specifically in view of the G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 which was issued for the specific purpose of regularizing the services of NMRs, daily wage employees, etc., who were working like a regular employee. It is also to be noted that, the 3 rd respondent addressed a letter to the 2 nd respondent dated 23.11.1994 specifically stating that there are two vacancies in the cadre of Attenders for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner herein to regularize his services as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. It is manifest that the said proceedings of the 3 rd respondent dated 23.11.1994 was not considered by the 2 nd respondent while issuing the above said impugned proceedings and at the same time the Tribunal also did not consider the proceedings of the 2 nd respondent dated 23.11.1994 before dismissing the O.A. 4. It is manifest that the said proceedings of the 3 rd respondent dated 23.11.1994 was not considered by the 2 nd respondent while issuing the above said impugned proceedings and at the same time the Tribunal also did not consider the proceedings of the 2 nd respondent dated 23.11.1994 before dismissing the O.A. 4. In view of the above said facts and circumstances and as the petitioner is eligible to be considered under the above said G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.09.1994 there is no other go for the authorities concerned except to re-instate him by regularizing the services under the above said G.O. with effect from the date of joining now. 5. The learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents also refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in State of Tamil Nadu vs. A. Singamuthu , (2017) 4 SCC 113 wherein at para No.8 it was observed as under: “8. Part-time or casual employment is meant to serve the exigencies of administration. It is a settled principle of law that continuance in service for a long period on part-time or temporary basis confers no right to seek regularization in service. The person who is engaged on temporary or casual basis is well aware of the nature of his employment and he consciously accepted the same at the time of seeking employment. Generally, while directing that temporary or part-time appointments be regularized or made permanent, the courts are swayed by the long period of service rendered by the employees.” The said observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court would not come in the way to the facts and circumstances of this case for extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 as there is a specific scheme under the said G.O. for the purpose of regularization of the NMRs. 6. In the result, the order of the Tribunal dated 01.08.2007 and the order of the 2 nd respondent dated 19.08.1999 are set aside herewith. The respondents herein are directed to re-instate the petitioner into service by extending the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 as Games Boy/ Attender in the 3 rd respondent college or in any other college in a suitable post wherever the vacancy is available within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The respondents herein are directed to re-instate the petitioner into service by extending the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 as Games Boy/ Attender in the 3 rd respondent college or in any other college in a suitable post wherever the vacancy is available within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Since the petitioner did not work all through till now, it shall be made clear that there shall be no pay for no work. The petitioner shall not claim any financial benefit for the period where he is out of service. From the date of re-instatement till the completion of remaining service and the service already rendered earlier shall only be taken into consideration for the purpose of pension or any other benefits as per the rules in existence. Upon re-instatement, he is entitled to be paid salary as per law for the said post which carries the same. Even for the purpose of seniority, the date of joining of re-instatement shall only be taken into consideration. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.