Allowed

N. Srinivasa Chary, v. The A.P. State Civil Sukpplies Corporation Ltd.

Telangana HC12 Sept 2012WP/8062/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court upheld the petitioner's claim for regularization as a Class IV Messenger from 1982, rejecting the claim for Assistant Grade-III parity due to different initial recruitment categories, setting aside a corporate endorsement that denied benefits under State Government orders.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement dated 29.03.2004 set aside. Petitioner to be regularized as Messenger with effect from 08.10.1982. Orders to be passed within 30 days.

N. Srinivasa Chary, Vs The A.P. State Civil… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 8062 of 2004

¶3

O R D E R :

¶4

This Writ Petition is instituted for declaring the endorsement issued by the respondent Corporation on 29.03.2004 declining to regularize the services of the petitioner at par with others with effect from 08.10.1982 as bad in law and consequently, to direct the respondent to regularize his services as Assistant Grade-III with effect from 08.10.1982.

¶5

Heard Sri J. Srinivsa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation.

¶6

The respondent Corporation is a state-owned Corporation, established for the purpose of securing efficient distribution of essential commodities. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1978 as a Messenger in Class IV service of the Corporation. The State Government has been approached by the Corporation seeking permission for regularizing the services of the employees appointed by it on daily wage/temporary/ad hoc basis. The State Government considered the matter and announced their decision through G.O.Ms.No. 368, Food & Agriculture (CSIII) Department, dated 08.10.1982. The State Government, in consultation with the Labour Employment, Nutrition and Technical Education Department and duly taking into account and consideration the facts and circumstances narrated by the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation, accorded permission to the said Corporation to regularize the employees appointed on daily wage basis till the end of June 1982 and they be placed on monthly wages with immediate effect. The necessary exemptions were also granted. By virtue of this decision of

¶7

the State Government contained in their G.O.Ms.No. 368, dated 08.10.1982, services of several employees came to be regularized. Several employees have also approached this Court by instituting Writ Petitions seeking regularization of their services with effect from the date on which the said G.O.Ms.No. 368, dated 08.10.1982 was issued. All those Writ Petitions were disposed of. The writ petitioner herein has also instituted Writ Petition No. 6174 of 1992, which was disposed of by this Court on 11.09.2003, directing the 2^nd respondent Corporation therein, the respondent herein, to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the orders passed in Writ Petition No. 8189 of 1995 and also the orders passed by the said Corporation on 02.07.2003 and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks. In the purported exercise of implementation of the said judgment, the present endorsement, dated 29.03.2004 was issued by the Vice Chairman and Managing Director.

¶8

In the impugned endorsement, it is recorded that the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 8189 of 1995 as well as the proceedings, dated 02.07.2003 are not attracted to the case of the petitioner. The reasons assigned in this regard are curious. Firstly, it is stated that the judgment in Writ Petition No. 8189 of 1995 was rendered inter parties. Because of the judgment rendered in the said case, the case of the petitioner in that case was considered for regularization and hence, that case has no application to the case of the petitioner herein. To say the least, this is a perverse view. What has been decided in Writ Petition No. 8189 of 1995 is based upon a principle. While disposing of Writ Petition No. 6174 of 1992 on 11.09.2003, this Court directed the respondent Corporation to deal with the case of the petitioner also in the light of the orders passed in the said Writ Petition No. 8189 of 1995. Therefore, the Corporation should have extended the same

¶9

principle even in the case of the petitioner. The distinction attempted at by the Corporation for denying the said benefit, in fact, tantamounts to overruling the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 6174 of 1992 on 11.09.2003. This is wholly impermissible for the Corporation to do. However, the matter does not rest there. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 8189 of 1995 are those who were appointed initially as Assistants Grade-III in the Corporation’s service, whereas the petitioner was initially engaged as a Messenger in Class IV service. Therefore, to the extent of the claim of the petitioner that his services should also be regularized as Assistant Grade-III with effect from 08.10.1982 is a far-fetched one. The writ petitioner, at best, can seek regularization of his services as a Messenger in Class IV service of the Corporation with effect from 08.10.1982, but certainly he cannot seek regularization of his services as Assistant Grade-III with effect from the said date. From the category of Messenger in Class IV service, he was subsequently, promoted as an Assistant Grade-III. Therefore, in the promoted category, he cannot seek parity of treatment with those who have been initially appointed as Assistants Grade-III on dailyrated basis and to whom the benefit of regularization flowing from G.O.Ms.No. 386, dated 08.10.1982 has been rendered applicable. Therefore, to the extent of the claim of the petitioner that his services should be regularized as Assistant Grade-III with effect from 08.10.1982 is unsustainable, but however, the State Government has authorized the respondent Corporation to regularize the services of all those persons, who have been engaged on daily-rated basis till the end of June 1982 with immediate effect, through their orders contained in G.O.Ms.No. 386, dated 08.10.1982. What could it mean and reflect? The State Government has authorized the Corporation to regularize the services of daily wage employees recruited as such till the end of June 1982 with effect from 08.10.1982. Therefore, the

¶10

respondent Corporation, which is bound to implement the directives issued by the State Government, in accordance with Article 51 of the Articles of its Association and Memorandum of Association, could not have picked up some other date for the purpose of regularization of the services of the petitioner. If the petitioner was not recruited on daily wage basis any time prior to the end of June 1982, he is not entitled to seek any benefit flowing from G.O.Ms.No. 386. On the other hand, if it is conceded that he is one such who has been recruited before the end of June 1982, he cannot be denied the benefit of regularization with effect from 08.10.1982.

¶11

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed in part. The endorsement issued on 29.03.2004 by the respondent Corporation is liable to be held as unsustainable and consequently, set aside. The respondent Corporation is directed to regularize the services of the writ petitioner as Messenger immediately with effect from 08.10.1982, the date on which the State Government issued orders through their G.O.Ms.No. 386, dated 08.10.1982 and regulate the conditions of his service accordingly. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to seek regularization of his services as Assistant Grade-III with effect from 08.10.1982 on par with other such daily-rated Assistants Grade-III, whose services have been regularized with effect from the said date. Consequently, orders be passed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. No costs.

¶12

Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand disposed of.

¶13

---------------------------------------------(NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J)

¶14

12^th September 2012

¶15

ksld

N. Srinivasa Chary, v. The A.P. State Civil Sukpplies Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Srinivasa Chary, v. The A.P. State Civil Sukpplies Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Nandanna Vs Government of A.P.

Vemulapalli Vidyasagar Rao Vs Bobba Ranga Rao

G. Raja Reddy, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

The General Manager, Vs The Chairman

Baba Fakruddin Aided Urdu Elementary School Vs The State of Andhra PRadesh

Y. Kanaka Durga, Vs The A.P. Tribal Welfare Residential Educational