Remanded

K. Ramakrishna Reddy v. N/s. Praga Tools Limited

Telangana HC6 Sept 2012WP/711/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a writ petition by two clerks seeking regularization of their services. While distinguishing the Umadevi line of cases regarding one-time regularization, the Court directs the respondent to consider the petitioners' cases under State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, noting they have served for over twenty-five years despite filling posts for regular vacancies.

What did the court decide?

The respondent directed to consider the petitioners' cases in accordance with M.L. Kesari and pass appropriate orders within four months.

K. Ramakrishna Reddy Vs N/s. Praga Tools… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.711 of 1999

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to i) declare the action of the respondent in disengaging the petitioners with effect from 21.11.1998 as illegal and arbitrary; ii) the action of the respondent in not regularizing the services of the petitioners from the date of initial appointment on par with the juniors as illegal and arbitrary; iii) direct the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date of initial appointment on par with juniors with all consequential benefits; and iv) consequently direct the respondent to continue the petitioners with continuous service.

¶5

The petitioners, two in number, are working as clerks with the respondent organization. The first petitioner was appointed on 02.09.1987, and the second petitioner on 03.05.1987. In the earlier Writ Petition filed by them i.e., W.P.No.7336 of 1993, this Court, by order dated 02.06.1993, directed that the petitioners be continued in service. Subsequently, the said Writ Petition was heard along with W.P.No.10352 of 1993 and this Court, by order dated 05.11.1996, disposed of the Writ Petitions observing that, since the settlement dated 15.09.1987 was binding on the petitioners who were the members of the Union, the respondent should consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in accordance with the settlement within six weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. Till such time, the petitioners were directed to be continued. On the ground that the petitioners’ case was not considered, they filed C.C.No.448 of 2008, and the said Contempt Case was closed on 10.09.1997 directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization immediately when vacancies arose. The present Writ Petition is filed contending that Sri V.Uma Maheshwar Reddy, junior to the petitioners, had been regularized in service, while the petitioners’ case for

¶6

regularization was ignored.

¶7

Sri B.G.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would draw attention of this Court to the seniority list dated 30.06.1990, wherein the petitioners are shown at serial numbers 15 and 8 respectively, and to the seniority list dated 30.11.1990, wherein the petitioners are shown at serial numbers 33 and 24 respectively. While

¶8

Sri V.Uma Maheshwar Reddy was not shown in the earlier seniority list of 30.06.1990, his name is reflected at serial number 51 in the seniority list, of casual clerks, dated 30.11.1990. Learned counsel would also place reliance on the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.17116 of 1996 dated 16.02.2006; W.P.No.2281 of 2007 dated 11.12.2007; and W.P.No.18031 of 2006 dated 06.09.2007, in support of his contention that this Court should issue positive directions to the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from the date on which the service of their junior was regularized. Learned counsel would further submit that in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court, in State of Karnataka v Umadevi^[1]

¶9

a n d State of Karnataka v M.L.Kesari^[2] , the services of the petitioners are required to be regularized, as they have completed more than ten years of service.

¶10

In the additional counter affidavit dated 07.07.2010, it is stated that the respondent company, vide letter dated 24.11.1989, had notified the post of Junior Assistant (IRPM) to the Regional Employment Exchange, Hyderabad, requesting them to sponsor eligible candidates; the qualifications prescribed for the said post was a Degree in any discipline i.e., Arts/Science/Commerce with Post Graduate Diploma in Industrial Relations and Personnel Management; the Employment Exchange had sponsored 30 candidates of whom 9 were called for the test and interview; from out of these 9 candidates, only 3 appeared; as none of them were found suitable for selection,

¶11

the respondent addressed letters dated 04.11.1989 and 24.11.1989 requesting the Employment Exchange to send a further list of candidates; the notification was also amended prescribing experience of three years in line as essential; the Employment Exchange sent another list of 18 candidates including Sri V.Uma Maheshwar Reddy who had a degree in Arts with a Post Graduate Diploma in Industrial Relations and Personnel Management; from out of the list sponsored by the Employment Exchange, the respondent found 5 candidates suitable for consideration; accordingly 5 candidates, including Sri V.Uma Maheshwar Reddy, were called for test and interview; 3 candidates appeared for the test and interview including Sri V.Uma Maheshwar Reddy; interviews were conducted by the General Manager (Operations), Deputy General Manager (Personnel & Administration), and the Manager (Personnel); Sri V.Uma Maheshwar Reddy was found suitable for appointment to the post, as he passed both in the test and interview; consequently Sri V.Uma Maheshwar Reddy was given an offer of appointment as Commercial Trainee (IRPM) vide letter dated 18.07.1990 and, on his accepting the said offer, he was appointed as Commercial Trainee (IRPM) with effect from 27.07.1990.

¶12

Sri P.Nageswar Sree, learned counsel for the respondent, would contend that, as the appointment of Sri V.Uma Maheswar Reddy was pursuant to a notification issued for filling up the post in a regular vacancy and it is not even the case of the petitioners that they fulfill the qualifications prescribed and were eligible for appointment to the said post, they are not entitled to compare their case with Sri V.Uma Maheswar Reddy. Learned counsel would also submit that the earlier order of this Court directing regularization in terms of the settlement is binding on the petitioners, and a similar relief sought in a subsequent Writ Petition is barred by the principles of res judicata.

¶13

It is evident from the counter affidavit that the appointment of Sri V.Uma Maheswar Reddy to the post of Commercial Trainee

¶14

(IRPM) was pursuant to a regular process of selection. It is not even the case of the petitioners that they were called upon to participate in the said process of selection, or that they were eligible for appointment to the said post. It is clear that the petitioners do not stand on the same footing as Sri V.Uma Maheswar Reddy, and their plea of discrimination is without basis.

¶15

In all the judgments of this Court, referred to hereinabove, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Umadevi¹ was not noticed. The contention that this Court, following the earlier judgments of this Court, should direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner, is therefore, misconceived. I also see no merit in the submission of Sri P.Nageswar Sree, learned counsel, that the earlier order of this Court, in W.P.No.7336 of 1993 dated 05.11.1996, would bar the petitioners from filing the present Writ Petition on the principles of res judicata. The earlier order of this Court directing regularization was on the basis of settlement of 1987. The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization from the date their junior was appointed. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the respondent whereby the services of the petitioners were sought to be disengaged with effect from 21.11.1998, which is subsequent to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.7336 of 1993 dated 05.11.1996. The doctrine of res judicata has, therefore, no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶16

The only question which remains to be considered is whether the petitioners are justified in contending that a mandamus be issued to the respondent directing that the services of the petitioners be regularized. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Umadevi¹ was considered in a subsequent judgment in M.L.Kesari² , wherein the Supreme Court observed as follows:-

¶17

“The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi ((2006) 4 SCC 1) is two- fold. First is to ensure that

¶18

those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for regularization in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/ instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/adhoc/casual for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure……..

¶19

…….The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, as a general one-time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one-time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts.”

¶20

In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.L.Kesari² , and inasmuch as the petitioners have been working as casual clerks in the respondent organization for more than twenty five years, I consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in

¶21

M.L.Kesari² , and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four months from today. Sri D.Ravi Shankar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, is present in the Court, and undertakes to inform the respondent of their obligations under this order.

¶22

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

(RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶24

06.09.2012

¶25

Note: Issue C.C in ten days. B/o. vs

¶26

[1] (2006) 4 SCC 1

¶27

[2] (2010) 9 SCC 247

K. Ramakrishna Reddy v. N/s. Praga Tools Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Ramakrishna Reddy v. N/s. Praga Tools Limited

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

Bhandara Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Vs -

Amaravati Thermal Power Private Limited, Vs -

M/s Nsl Sez (Chennai) Private Limited Vs -

Budharapu Gopal, Vs The Assistant General Manager

B.Sankar, Vs Food Corporation of India

The Smart Security Service Pvt, Ltd.,, Vs Sri M.Venkata Rao