Disposed

K Padmavathi v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC25 Jul 2022WP/14103/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in a writ petition dealt with the regularization of petitioners in Junior Assistant posts. The court directed the respondent to consider the petitioners' eligibility for regularization based on a specific government memo and subsequent proceedings within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider the petitioners for regularization based on specific memo and proceedings within six weeks.

K Padmavathi Vs the State of Ap — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.14103 of 2020

¶4

ORDER :

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶6

of India, seeking the following relief:

¶7

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in not continuing the petitioners in the vacant regular Junior Assistant posts as per the approved cadre strength and proposing to fill the regular vacancies through outsourcing agencies or any other mode as bad, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in the vacant regular junior assistant posts in the approved cadre strength as was done in the case of the Computer operators vide proceedings of 3^rd respondent in R.C.No.A1/6005/2011, dated 18.07.2011 and ratified by 2^nd respondent vide proceedings in R.C.No.A1/COE-11026/124/2018-A SEC-ENDOWMENTS, dated 24.01.2019 and pass such other orders.”

¶8

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are working in the 3^rd respondent/ temple more than 15 years as against the regular vacant post of Junior Assistants, if the said posts are filled up by outsourcing or any other mode, the petitioners will be left with no vacant posts in the cadre strength and even if the State Government takes the policy decision to regularize the services of the temporary employees/ contract employees/NMR etc., the petitioners will be losing the opportunity of being regularization due to non existence of vacant posts in the cadre strength. The 2^nd respondent issued Memo dated 29.07.2020 wherein all the Executive Officers were instructed to engage the manpower and work outsourcing through the A.P. Corporation for Outsourced Services (APCOS), under

¶9

¶10

the guise of said Memo and misinterpreting the same, which is also applicable for regular vacant post the 3^rd respondent is proposing to fill the regular vacant posts through outsourcing or any other mode. Hence the rights of the petitioners will be infringed. Hence the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶11

No counter filed by the respondents.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners placed on record the Memo No. ENDW/502/2019/Endt.I(2), dated 02.02.2022 wherein it

¶13

was stated as follows:

¶14

“ In the circumstances reported by the Commissioner of Endowments, A.P, Vijayawada in the references cited, it is informed to take necessary action as was done in case of the individuals covered in Rc.Nos.A1/6005/2011, Dt.11.07.2011, Rc.No. A1/5943/2010, Dt. 31.08.2011 & Rc.No.A1/627/2011, Dt.04.01.2012, if the present 3 individuals Sri A.K.D.Siva Kumar, Sri V. Praneeth Babu and Sri M. Jaya Prakash are same and similar to the individuals who covered in above R.C.Nos., keeping in view of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.Nos.18568 of 2015 and 2602/2019”.

¶15

He further placed on record the Proceedings in Rc.No.A1/11026/2019, dated 21.06.2022, wherein it was stated as follows:

¶16

“ Attention of Executive Officer, Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Vijayawada is invited to the references cited. She is instructed to implement the Government memo issued in the reference 1^st cited for regularization of services of three (3) individuals i.e Sri A.K.D.Siva Kumar, Junior Assistant, Sri V. Praneeth Babu, Junior Assistant and Sri M. Jaya Prakash, Sanitary Inspector, as the Executive Officer is the competent authority to take action in the matter and as the three orders referred by the

¶17

¶18

Government in its memo were issued by the then Executive Officer of the subject temple.”

¶19

During hearing, Mr. K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that the 2^nd respondent issued proceedings dated 21.06.2022 as cited supra, basing on the Memo dated 02.02.2022 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government, instructed to implement the Memo as cited above for regularization of services of above individuals, as the Executive Officer is the competent authority to take action in the matter, which is pending before the 3^rd respondent. Therefore, whatever decision passed by the 3^rd respondent is binding on the said individuals and also similar to this petitioner as per the proceedings dated 21.06.2022. Hence, requested to pass appropriate directions in the writ petition.

¶20

Mr. D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioners accede the contentions of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and requested to issue a direction as submitted by him, without touching the merits of the case.

¶21

Considering the submissions of learned counsel, this Court inclined to dispose of the writ petition, while directing the 3^rd respondent to consider the case of the petitioners, if they are eligible in terms of Memo dated 02.02.2022 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government and proceedings dated 21.06.2022 issued by the Commissioner along with similar situated persons as referred therein and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

¶23

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly, without touching the merits of the case with the consent of both the learned counsel. No costs.

¶24

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶25

__________________________________ DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

Date: 25.07.2022.

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.14103 of 2020

¶31

Date: 25.07.2022. KK

K Padmavathi v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Padmavathi v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N. Vijaya Bhaskar, Vs the State of Ap

K.S.R. Lingeswari Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Bhimavarapu Babu Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Boppanna Satyanarayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G Bhaskara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kum. Dasari Venkata Geetha Anuhya, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh