Dr.P.Satyanarayana Raju Vs the Director of Medical,Health and Family Welfare

DR.P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU, S/O VENKATA RAMA RAJU, AGE 59 YEARS, OCC. CIVIL ASSISTANT SURGEON, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, GOLLAVANITIPPA, BHIMAVARAM (RURAL), BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P.

¶14

THE MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DIST., A.P.

¶15

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH, MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST., A.P.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to grant appropriate relief, more in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring the action of the Respondents in not regularizing the services of the Petitioner in the cadre of Civil Assistant Surgeon with effect from the date of initial appointment i.e., 06-08-2002, and not paying regular salary attached to the post of Civil

¶18

2

¶19

W.P.No.8364 of 2023

¶20

Assistant Surgeon with effect from 06-08-2002 till 08-02-2007 as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and unconstitutional violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and issue consequential directions directing the Respondents to forthwith regularize the services of the Petitioner in the cadre of Civil Assistant Surgeon with effect from 06-08-2002 and pay regular salary to the Petitioner from 06-08-2002 till 08-02-2007 after deducting consolidated salary paid to the Petitioner during that period, and further direct the Respondents to reckon the services of the Petitioner from 06-08-2002 for the purpose of releasing pensionary benefits to the Petitioner after retirement of the Petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation, and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.P V KRISHNAIAH

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶25

3

¶26

W.P.No.8364 of 2023

¶27

The Court made the following ORDER:-

¶28

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶29

“…to grant appropriate relief, more in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring the action of the Respondents in not regularizing the services of the Petitioner in the cadre of Civil Assistant Surgeon with effect from the date of initial appointment i.e., 06-08-2002, and not paying regular salary attached to the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon with effect from 06-08-2002 till 08-02-2007 as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and unconstitutional violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India…

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

¶31

The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on 06.08.2002 as civil assistant surgeon on contract basis and thereafter, he was regularly selected and appointed on 08.02.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made his submissions that the petitioner’s services has to be regularized with retrospective effect from the date of his initial appointment on contract basis from 06.08.2002 but the respondents failed to consider the same. To support his contentions, the petitioner relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court with regard to regularization but on perusal of the material placed along with the writ petition, the fact remains that the petitioner has never approached the authorities for regularization of his service with retrospective effect.

¶32

4

¶33

W.P.No.8364 of 2023

¶34

In the said circumstances, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case and the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the concerned authorities for addressing his claim. If any such representation is made, the same may be considered in accordance with law.

¶35