Dismissed

C.V. Ramana, v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams

Telangana HC8 Dec 2010WP/26442/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking regularization of services from the original date of joining. The Court held the petitioner was not entitled to benefits under the relevant Government Orders as he was not on the rolls during the specified period, though his services were later regularized.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs; the petitioner is not precluded from filing an application before the appropriate authority for regularization on par with juniors.

C.V. Ramana, Vs Tirumala Tirupati… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶3

W.P.NO.26442 OF 2000

Date:08-12-2010

Between:-

C.V.Ramana

.. Petitioner

And

Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, rep.by its Executive Officer, Tirupathi. .. Respondent

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring action of the respondent in not regularising services of the petitioner as Junior Assistant on par with his juniors as arbitrary and illegal.

¶12

According to the petitioner, he joined service of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (T.T.D.) as a casual labour in the month of December, 1984 and he was discharging duties as a Helper in Water Works Department of the respondent institution. However, his services were terminated illegally in the year 1987 and therefore, he filed W.P.No.9943 of 1989 and in view of the interim orders passed therein on 24-09-1989 in W.P.M.P.No.13157 of 1989, the petitioner was reinstated into service.

¶13

Though the grievance of the petitioner is that his services were not regularised, it appears that during the pendency of this writ petition, in the year 2007, through G.O.Ms.No.1292 dated 10-10-2007, services

¶14

of the petitioner were absorbed on regular basis and he is continuing as such. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that he is entitled for regularisation of his services from the date of his joining duty in the month of December, 1984. Whereas in the counter filed by the respondent, it is stated that the petitioner was engaged as a casual labour between 01-01-1985 to 31-03-1986 and a policy decision was taken by the respondent for regularisation of the services of certain employees those who were engaged during the year from 0104-1984 to 31-03-1988 and were on the rolls of T.T.D. as NMR/Casual Labourer/Consolidated pay/ Daily Wages/Volunteers etc as on the date of sending proposals to the Government for regularisation of their services, were absorbed into the regular services of T.T.D. as per the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.390 and 391, Rev.(Endts.III) Dept dated 0605-1991. The petitioner was not on the rolls of the T.T.D as on the date of sending proposals to the Government. Therefore, he is not entitled for the benefit of the said G.Os. The petitioner was taken into service as per the orders of this Court on 24-09-1989 and his services were regularised thereafter vide G.O.Ms.No.1292 dated 1010-2007.

¶15

As noticed above, persons who worked during the period from 01-04-1984 to 31-03-1988 and were on the rolls and were engaged continuously were only entitled for regularisation and not the persons like the petitioner. Even otherwise, the case of the petitioner was taken up during the pendency of the writ petition and his services are regularised as noticed above.

¶16

In those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as sought for. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. However, this will not preclude the petitioner from filing an application before the appropriate authority seeking regularisation of his services on par with his juniors, if any, engaged by the T.T.D. as per law.

¶17

The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶18

_______________ C.V.RAMULU, J

¶19

8^th December 2010 AMD

C.V. Ramana, v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.V. Ramana, v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams

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

B.Venkata Subba Reddy Kadapa District Vs The Govt of A.P

P.Narayana Murthy Vs The A.P.S.R.T.C

Guntupalli Gram Panchayat, rep. by its Sarpanch Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary

Gattu Vaman Rao Vs The Principal Secretary, Home Department

Kampasati Annapoorna, Vs The District Forest Officer

Smt. L.Usha Rani, Vs The a.P.State Seeds Development Corporation Limited