Disposed

Smt. K. Savitri v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC7 Dec 2011WP/29898/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed for issuance of mandamus directing regularization of services and grant of pay scales and arrears. Court directed respondents to consider petitioner's representation within two months without expressing opinion on entitlement.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within two months.

Smt. K. Savitri Vs The Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 29898 OF 2011

¶3

Date: 07-12-2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

Smt.K.Savitri And The Government of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

The Court made the following:

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner, who has been working as Sweeper in the 3^rd respondent-temple, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as Sweeper and to grant present pay scales along with arrears with effect from her initial date of appointment and all other service

¶11

benefits.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is appointed as Sweeper in the 3^rd respondent-temple by an order dated 30.06.1995 and since then she has been working as Sweeper in the temple. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community. Though she has been working as Sweeper since 1995, she has made to work only on a consolidated meagre pay. Therefore, she made a representation dated 12.01.2011 to the 3^rd respondent stating that she has been working as Sweeper since 30.06.1995 and the meagre salary that she has been getting by way of consolidated pay is not sufficient to run the family. Therefore, she requested for increasing of the salary and for regularization of her services.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that on 18.06.2011 the petitioner met the 2^nd respondentChairman of the Andhra Pradesh Dharmika Parishad and explained her problem to the Chairman, who in turn has promised that he will look into the matter. But, so far he has not considered the issue of regularization of the services of the petitioner. The petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment reported in State of Karnataka v. M.L.Kesari^[1] and the Appeal (Civil) Nos.3595-3612 of 1999 dated 10.04.2006.

¶14

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent-temple submits that by virtue of the provisions of Act 2 of 1994, unless a person puts in continuous service of five years as on the cut of date i.e. 25.11.1993, the employee need not be entitled for regularization of

¶15

service. Therefore, she is not entitled for any regularization of service.

¶16

From the above, it could be seen that the petitioner has been working as Sweeper since 30.06.1995 and her case is that the meagre salary that is being paid by the 3^rd respondent-temple presently at Rs.3,500/- per month is not sufficient to meet her necessities. Therefore, in view of her long and continuing service, she made a representation dated 12.01.2011 to the 3^rd respondent, but the same has not been considered till date. In view of these facts and circumstances and without expressing any opinion as to the case of the petitioner, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 12.01.2011 in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶17

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶18

___________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J

¶19

07-12-2011 MR

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO. 29898 OF 2011

¶22

Date: 07-12-2011

¶23

¶24

[1] AIR 2010 SC 2587

Smt. K. Savitri v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. K. Savitri v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Ramulu, Vs The Managing Director

D. Keshava Reddy Vs The Commissioner

Smt. Laxmi Bai, Vs The General Manager

Ch. Madhusudhan Rao Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Shaik Chand Basha, Vs a.P.S.R.T.C., Rep.by its Vice-Chairman And Managing

P.V. Subba Rao Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation