Rambhadur Singh and Another v. Prl.Secy Higher Edun. and 2 Others

Telangana HC2 Jan 2012WP/34534/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the failure to regularize his services as a daily wage employee, violating Article 14. The court found the company had furnished required information and directed respondents to process the regularization application within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to consider the petitioners for regularization and pass appropriate orders within two months.

Rambhadur Singh and Another Vs Prl.Secy Higher… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.34534 of 2011

¶6

Between: Rambhadur Singh

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education (C.E-II) Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others

¶10

.....RESPONDENTS

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.34534 of 2011

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶16

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners, seeking Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondents Nos.1 and 2 in not regularizing the services of the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Article-14 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct Respondents Nos.1 and 2 to regularize the services of the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 by considering the proposal dated 20.10.2008 sent by the 3^rd respondent.

¶17

The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC-II) Department, dated 22.04.1994, formulating a scheme for regularization/absorption of daily wage/NMR employees. The said G.O. contemplates for regularization of services of daily wage/NMR employees, subject to the following conditions.

¶18

1) The persons appointed should possess the qualifications prescribed as per rules in force as on the date from which his/her services have to be regularized.

¶19

2) They should be within the age limits as on the date of appointment as NMR/Daily wage employee.

¶20

3) The rule of reservation wherever applicable will be followed and backlog will be set off against future vacancies.

¶21

4) Sponsoring of candidates from Employment Exchange is relaxed.

¶22

5) Absorption shall be against clear vacancies of posts considered necessary to be continued as per work load excluding the vacancies already notified to the Andhra Pradesh Service Commission/District Selection Committee.

¶23

6) In the case of work charged establishment, where there will be no clear vacancies, because of the fact that the expenditure on work charged is at a fixed percentage of P.S. charges and as soon as the work is over, the services of work charged establishment will have to be terminated, they shall be adjusted in other departments, District Offices provided there are clear vacancies of Last Grade Service.

¶24

The case of the petitioners is that the 1^st petitioner was appointed as Watchman and the 2^nd petitioner was appointed as Woman Attender in the 3^rd respondent institution on 09.07.1986, as unaided employees, by following due process of law. Thereafter, the petitioners made a representation to the 1^st respondent to absorb them in grant-in-aid posts and to regularize their services. But the respondents have not considered their representation for regularization of their services, though there were aided posts available in the 3^rd respondent institution. Therefore, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the petitioners made correspondence on the issue of regularization of their services from 1988 onwards till 2010, the issue has not been finalized. He further submits that the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services. He further submits that the last communication that is sent by the 3^rd respondent institution is the letter dated 20.10.2008, addressed to the 2^nd respondent, who is competent authority for considering the cases of the petitioners for regularization of services, but till today no action has been taken by the respondents.

¶26

The facts are not in dispute and they were born out by record.

¶27

Petitioners were appointed as Watchman and Attender respectively on 09.07.1986 in the 3^rd respondent institution. Consequent to the issue of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 24.04.1994, the 3^rd respondent institution sent the proposals to the 2^nd respondent, vide letter dated 15.09.1998, stating that due to the paucity of nonteaching staff, the Management has made 10 non-teaching appointments in various categories, and accordingly, sought permission for ratification of the said appointments, which fall within the purview of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. The petitioners have also made a representation dated 29.08.2010 to the 1^st respondent, seeking regularization of their services. In response to the same, the 1^st respondent-Government issued a Memo No.14234/CE-II-1/2000-1 dated 08.09.2000, addressed to the 2^nd respondent, calling for the report for taking necessary action on the issue of the petitioners. The 3^rd respondent, vide letter dated 16.02.2002, furnished the particulars of the petitioners to the 2^nd respondent. On the ground that the information sent by the 3^rd respondent to the 2^nd respondent was found to be insufficient, therefore, the 2^nd respondent again, by proceedings No.903/Admn.VI/2/2008 dated 15.10.2008, called for the information from the 3^rd respondent in the following aspects.

¶28

1. Whether the employees (petitioners herein) are eligible for regularization, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212.

¶29

2. Number of non-teaching posts admitted to grant-in-aid. Number of persons working and vacancies as on date.

¶30

In response to the above proceedings of the 2^nd respondent, the 3^rd respondent furnished the information to the 2^nd respondent vide letter dated 20.10.2008, marking ‘YES’ in respect of the 1^st aspect and in respect of 2^nd aspect, the 3^rd respondent gave reply that there

¶31

were 14 non-teaching staff, staff working are 10 Nos. and there were 4 vacancies in the 3^rd respondent institution. The 3^rd respondent also enclosed an annexure to the said letter, showing the particulars viz., name of incumbents, date of birth, age, date of appointment, total service put by the petitioners, nature of the posts held by the petitioners and to which category they belong, as to whether NMRs or otherwise, number of posts sanctioned, number of vacancies, educational qualifications of the petitioners etc. Thereafter, the was not moved further.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter is pending with Respondents Nos.2 and 3, and as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, the 1^st respondent-Government is competent authority for giving clearance to regularize the services of the employees under the aforesaid G.O.

¶33

In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the fact that the 3^rd respondent institution has already furnished the entire required information to the 2^nd respondent, who is competent authority to regularize the services of the petitioners, the respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization of their services, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶35

____________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J

¶36

Dated:02.01.2012 Dsr

Rambhadur Singh and Another v. Prl.Secy Higher Edun. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rambhadur Singh and Another v. Prl.Secy Higher Edun. and 2 Others

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. Ravi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its

V.Chinnayya Naidu, Vs Deputy Registrar of Coperative Societies

K. Prasad Vs Apsrtc.

B. Rajesh, Vs The Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director

Guda Pruthviraju, Vs The Government of Ap.

B. Madhu Mohan Reddy Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.