Allowed

R.P.Ugendhar Babu Tirupthi CHITOORAND4 Ors. v. E.O. T.T.D. Tirupathi Chittoor

Telangana HC29 Mar 2010WP/8417/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses the re-engagement of packers in the Sapthagiri Journal Section of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam. The court held that denying similar benefits and re-engagement to the petitioners, which were granted to a previous batch of employees with equal service, violated Article 14. It directed re-engagement on par with the previous batch within two months.

What did the court decide?

The respondents shall consider the case of the petitioners for re-engaging and fixation of their scale of pay on par with the petitioners in W.P.No.102/1994 dated 18.9.2010, and pass appropriate order

R.P.Ugendhar Babu Tirupthi CHITOORAND4… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶2

W.P.NO.8417 OF 2003

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

Heard both the counsel.

¶5

2. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to re-engage the petitioners as packers in Sapathagiri Journal Section on N.M.R. basis with consequential absorption in the light of the judgments of this court in W.P.Nos.3983/1994 and 2683/1997 by following Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶6

3. The petitioners are five in number and their case, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, is that they were all appointed as packers on contingent basis to work in Sapthagiri Journal Section published by Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam. The publication of the journal is of continuous nature, as the journal is published in five different languages. During 1992 and 1993, all the petitioners have worked continuously more than 240 days and 180 days with some break of service. They were terminated without any reasons and therefore, they approached this court in W.P.No.3983/1994 and this court by order dated 28.4.1995 disposed of the writ petition and considering that they rendered services for a considerable period, directed that it is desirable that the TTD may consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in case the work exists and there is need to appoint, of course along with the case of others. One of the petitioners in W.P.No.3983/1994 by name D.Divakar and another in the above writ petition, who worked with the petitioners were reinstated as NMR as multipurpose

¶7

workers and later their services were regularized on 15.9.1997. Further the Editor of the journal by proceedings in ROC.No.ES 1/3587/Editor/92 dated 27.9.1996, sought sanction of five posts of packers at journal section and that apart, there are two posts of packers (permanent) and eight posts of packers (temporary) in the journal section. The petitioners have made representations including dated 23.1.2003 to the respondents to reengage them into service with consequential absorption. Two other persons who worked along with the petitioners and who were also petitioners 1 and 7 in W.P.No.3983/1994 along with the present petitioners, filed W.P.No.26883/1997, and this court by order dated 16.4.1998, directed the respondents to maintain seniority list of all the temporary employees under whatever designation they were appointed, unit wise/department wise, branch wise and their chances of absorption, regularization, retrenchment have to be restricted to that unit/department/branch, without bringing or appointing outsiders from elsewhere. This court further directed the respondents to prepare seniority lists as directed, within three months from the date of receipt of the order and after preparing the seniority lists, the respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners in the journal section in their turn. Though the respondents carried the matter in appeal in W.A.No.1057/998, the same was dismissed on 10.4.2002. It is stated that in spite of the above directions of this court, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioners and are engaging the outsiders. Hence, the present writ petition, for re-engaging the writ petitioners as per the directions of this court in the earlier writ petitions.

¶8

4. The Executive Officer of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, filed

¶9

counter affidavit and stated inter alia that the petitioners are engaged on hourly basis and hence they cannot take shelter under the Industrial Disputes Act and further in pursuance of the directions of this court in W.P.No.3983/1994, the case of the petitioners was rejected by proceedings in Roc.No.B7/19453/1995 dated 18.8.1995, as they are not eligible for appointment or absorption. The petitioners 1, 2 and 4 raised industrial disputes in I.D.Nos.37, 38 and 39 of 1998 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Anantapur and by order dated 26.9.2001 the said I.Ds were dismissed on the ground that the workmen therein were not engaged as daily wage basis and did not work for 240 days in a calendar year and hence they are not entitled for any relief. It is also stated that no new persons were appointed from out side for packing and dispatching works of journal. With these averments, inter alia, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed.

¶10

5. The petitioners filed additional affidavit stating that without complying the orders of this court the respondents were engaging outsiders and proceedings of the Chief Editor, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam dated 10.3.2010 shows that eight persons are engaged in contravention of the above judgments of this Hon’ble Court. It is also stated that the petitioners 1 and 7 in W.P.No.3983/1994 filed another writ petition in W.P.No.102/2004 and this court by order dated 18.9.2009 directed the respondents to pay their salary attached to the post. The Executive Officer Tiumala Tirupathi Devasthanam implemented the orders of this court in W.P.No.102/2004 and issued proceedings in Roc.No.B7/10928/1998 dated 18.1.2010. Therefore, the petitioners are seeking consideration of their case on par with the petitioners in W.P.No.102/2004.

¶11

6. The respondents did not file any reply affidavit controverting the above averments made in the additional affidavit.

¶12

7. In the order to consider the case of the respective parties, it is necessary to note few admitted facts.

¶13

8. The petitioners were working as packers on contingent basis in Sapthagiri Journal published by Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam. As they were disengaged, along with others, they filed writ petition before this court in W.P.No.3983 of 1994. This court by order dated 28.4.1995 disposed of the writ petition. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

¶14

“However, without expressing any opinion on the contentions raised, but taking into consideration the services rendered by the petitioners for a considerable period, while disposing of the writ petition, it is desired that the TTD may consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in the case the work exists and there is need to appoint, of course, along with the case of others. The consideration of the request of the petitioners for regularization or rejection shall be only in accordance with the rules. In view of the present order, I decline to say anything on the representation given by the petitioners on 19.1.1994.”

¶15

9. Therefore, from the above direction of this court it is clear that this court, taking into consideration the judicial notice of the fact that petitioners have rendered services for a considerable period, desired that the TTD may consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in the case work exists and there is need to appoint, of course along with others. This court further directed that request of the petitioners for regularization or rejection shall only

¶16

be in accordance with rules. In the counter filed by the respondents it is stated that in pursuance of the above directions of this court in W.P.No.3983/1994, the request of the petitioners was rejected, as they are not eligible for appointment or absorption in TTD in view of Act 2/1994.

¶17

10. It is to be noticed that the petitioners 1 and 7 in W.P.No.3983/1994 filed another writ petition in W.P.No.26883/1997 for directing the respondents to absorb them into TTD. By order dated 16.4.1998 this court disposed of the writ petition with the following direction:

¶18

“The respondents shall maintain seniority list of all temporary employees under whatever designation they were appointed, unit wise/department wise/branch wise and their chances of absorption, regularization, retrenchment have to be restricted to that unit/department/branch without bringing or appointing outsiders elsewhere. The respondents shall prepare the seniority lists as directed now within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. After preparing the seniority lists, the respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners in the journal section in their turn. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed, but in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.”

¶19

11. Challenging the above order of the leaned single Judge, the respondents preferred writ appeal in W.A.No.1057/1998 and the said writ appeal was dismissed on 10.4.2002. In the counter it is sought to contend that the counsel appearing for the respondents represented that the respondents are not pressing the matter. It is further stated that no such instructions were given. It is to be noticed that the fact remains that the writ

¶20

appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed and if the respondents are really aggrieved by the order of this court, ought to have either filed a review or carried the matter in appeal. But no such steps, appears to have been taken.

¶21

12. Further in the counter it is stated that pursuance to the directions of this court in W.P.No.26883/1997 the petitioners were reinstated into service with retrospective effect in the same status in which they were engaged prior to termination of their services.

¶22

13. One fact to the noticed is that the petitioners in W.P.No.26883/1997 were also among the petitioners in W.P.No.3983/1994. It is not specifically stated that the petitioners in W.P.No.3983/1994 are different or that their service particulars are different from that of the petitioners in W.P.No.3983/1994. When the services of the petitioners in W.P.No.26883/1997 were reinstated into service with retrospective effect, I do not find any justification to reject the case of the present petitioners, who also stand on similar footing with that of the petitioners in W.P.No.26883/1997.

¶23

14. This court in W.P.No.26883/1997 by order dated 16.4.1998 directed the respondents to prepare the seniority list within three months from the date of receipt of that order and that after preparing the seniority list, directed to consider the case of the petitioners in the journal section in their turn. This court also directed that the chance of the petitioners therein for absorption, regularization, retrenchment have to be restricted to that unit/department/branch, without bringing or appointing outsiders from elsewhere. Therefore, this court directed to first prepare seniority list and

¶24

then consider their cases for absorption, regularization, retrenchment as per the said seniority list and there was a specific direction not to engage outsiders.

¶25

15. From the counter filed, there is no material to show that the directions of this court in W.P.No.26883/1997 were complied with by preparing the seniority list. But however, the petitioners therein were reengaged by giving retrospective effect.

¶26

16. The other serious allegation of the petitioners is that the respondents have engaged outsiders in contravention of the directions of this court in W.P.No.26883/1997. In support of their averment, they produced a copy of the proceedings in Roc.No.ES.1/2172/Chief Editor/2009 dated 10.3.2010 issued by the Chief Editor. A perusal of the said proceedings would disclose that the respondents entrusted the work for supply of 8 laborers to the Sapthagiri Godown for a period of six months from 20.12.2009 to 19.6.2010 to the tenderer Sri Padala Venkateswaraswamy Contractor and Services Tirupathi. Through the said proceedings, sanction was also accorded to drawn an amount of Rs.52,172/- towards the wages of eight labourers. Therefore, from this it is clear that when there is a specific direction of this court to consider the case of the petitioners by preparing seniority list and not to engage the outsides, the proceedings of the Chief Editor dated 10.3.2010, is in clear contravention of the orders of this court. Had the seniority list been prepared, then the position of the present petitioners also would have known. This has not been done and only the petitioners in W.P.No.26883/1997 were reengaged by giving retrospective effect. This arbitrary action of the respondents cannot be appreciated.

¶27

17. The other aspect to be noticed is that petitioners in W.P.No.26883/1997 filed another writ petition before this court in W.P.No.102/2004 for a direction to the respondents to continue their services and regularize their services as packers with all consequential and attendant benefits and they also sought for a direction to the respondents to pay the petitioners minimum wages. This court by order dated 18.09.2009 disposed of the writ petition with the following direction:

¶28

“The petitioners having rendered services for all these years and having gained valuable experience would necessarily have to be considered in accordance with these rules, giving due weightage to their experience and length of service and granting age relaxation, if necessary.

¶29

With regard to the issue of payment of wages on par with regular employees of equivalent cadre, while dealing with the case of daily wagers in the Commercial Tax Department, the Supreme Court in UMADEVI {(2006)4 SCC 1)} held that such persons were entitled to be paid wages equal to the salary of the last grade of employees of their cadre. Accordingly, the petitioners shall be paid the minimum time scale applicable to regular Class-IV employees in the Devasthanams, during the period of their continuance in service, pending the decision of the Devasthanams.

¶30

The writ petition is accordingly allowed in terms of the directions afore stated.

¶31

In the light of this final order, no further orders are required to be passed in WPMP.No.28854 of 2004, which is consequently closed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.”

¶32

18. Along with the material papers, the learned counsel for the petitioners produced copy of the proceedings in Roc.No.B7/10928/998 dated 18.1.2010, wherein the directions of this court in W.P.No. 102/1994 dated 18.9.2009 have been complied with. The relevant portion of the said proceedings is extracted as under for better appreciation:

¶33

“The Hon’ble High Court of A.P. while disposing the W.P.No.102/94 field by Sri D.Poorna Chandra Rao and N.Giri Prasad NMR packers, the HHC has passed orders to pay the minimum of the time scale applicable to regular Class-IV employees to the said individuals vide orders 1^st cited. Accordingly the matter was placed before the TTD Board. The TTD Board in the reference 2^nd read above has approved to pay minimum of the time scale to the said individuals as per orders of the Hon’ble High Court.

¶34

In pursuance of the Hon’ble High Court orders 1^st read above and TTD Board in its Resolution 2^nd read above sanction is hereby accorded to extend minimum of the time scale of Rs.3850/- per month and usual allowances in the scale of pay of Rs.3850-8600 in RPS-2005 attached to the post of last grade service, to the said persons w.e.f. 18-9-2009 (i.e.,) from the date of the orders of Hon’ble High Court.

¶35

The Chief Editor, Editors Office, TTD, is requested to take necessary further action accordingly, to prove the above said benefit to the said two persons working under his control.

¶36

The Audit Officer, Pre-Audit (General), TTD, Tirupati is requested to admit and pass the bills accordingly.”

¶37

19. Therefore, it is clear that the orders of this court in W.P.No.102/1994 have been complied with. The petitioners in W.P.No.102/1994 and the petitioners in the present writ petition stand on the same footing, since all of them filed a writ petition before this court in W.P.No.3983/1994 and this court had taken judicial notice of the fact that all the petitioners therein have rendered services for a considerable period. Further in the subsequent writ petition in W.P.No.26883/1997 dated 16.4.1998, this court directed to prepare seniority list and also directed not to engage outsiders. But the respondents did not place before this court any material evidencing that they prepared any seniority list and further as per the proceedings dated 10.3.2010 issued by the Chief Editor of the Chief Editor, TT.Devasthanams, Tirupathi, they have engaged eight persons through a contractor, which is nothing but circumventing the orders of this court. Therefore, the action of the respondents in disengaging the services of the petitioners herein, is arbitrary and illegal. In view of these circumstances, denial the benefit, which has been extended to the petitioners in W.P.No.102/1994 to the present petitioners, would amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶38

20. For the foregoing reasons, I pass the order as under:

¶39

“The respondents shall consider the case of the petitioners for reengaging and fixation of their scale of pay on par with the petitioners in W.P.No.102/1994 dated 18.9.2010, on all aspects, and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶40

21. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶41

AVS -----------------------------------------29—03—2010

R.P.Ugendhar Babu Tirupthi CHITOORAND4 Ors. v. E.O. T.T.D. Tirupathi Chittoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.P.Ugendhar Babu Tirupthi CHITOORAND4 Ors. v. E.O. T.T.D. Tirupathi Chittoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Venkat Reddy Vs Union of India

Akkala Srinivas Reddy, Vs Union of India

S.S.Murthy, Vs The Pension Sanctioning Authority

G.S.Patnaik, E.750126, S/o.Satyanarayana Vs The Apsrtc, rep.by its Managing director, Musheerabad

Sikiley Krishna Murthy, Vs The Commissioner Endowments Department

B. Vikram Reddy Vs B. Pramod Kumar Reddy