The High Court directed the DRDA, Nellore District, to consider regularizing petitioners who served over 25 years in a defunct institute (CATRAN) on humanitarian grounds, quashing the respondent's refusal based on temporary appointments.
DRDA, Nellore District directed to consider regularization of petitioners' services on humanitarian grounds.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
WRIT PETITION No.21294 OF 1999 and CONTEMPT CASE No.433 of 2003 DATE:25.02.2013
W.P.No.21294 of 1999:
Between:
Ambati Jayaramaiah and others … Petitioners and
The Commissioner, Rural Development, Insurance Buildings, Tilak Road, Hyderabad and another … Respondents
C.C.No.433 of 2003:
Between:
Ambati Jayaramaiah and others … Petitioners and
G. Anantha Ramu, District Collector, Nellore, and another … Respondents
This Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
An institute called ‘Centre for Advancement of Technology in Rural Areas of Nellore (CATRAN)’ was established by the State Government with a view to advance appropriate modern technology in the Nellore District to go to the reach of rural artisans,
non-agricultural labourers and other persons below poverty line. The petitioners were appointed by the District Collector as the Chairman of CATRAN on a consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/-. The petitioners have been working with the 2nd respondent since 1988. The petitioners seek for regularization of their services. On 12.10.1999, an interim order was passed in WPMP No.26711 of 1999 to continue the services of the petitioners, pending disposal of the writ petition. Alleging that there was violation of the interim order, the petitioners preferred C.C.No.238 of 2000. Subsequently, as the Project Director
(2nd respondent) agreed to ensure work to the petitioners and effect payment of salaries at the end of each month, the contempt case was adjourned to 23.06.2000
dispensing with the presence of the 2nd respondent before the Court. On 21.07.2000, the contempt case was closed ordering the disposal of the writ petition.
Sri R.N. Hemendranath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have been continuing in service ever since 1988, that some of them have even retired from service and that it would be just and proper to continue the remaining employees including the petitioners in the service of the 2nd respondent. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, Panchayat Raj, however, pointed out that the 2nd respondent has become defunct and that the services of the petitioners have been utilized as on today by DRDA, Nellore District. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further contended that the petitioners were appointed on consolidated wages on temporary basis and that there is no provision to regularize the services of the petitioners.
Admittedly, the petitioners have put up more than a quarter century of service either with the 2nd respondent or with DRDA. In such circumstance, it would be just and reasonable to direct the concerned authority to consider regularization of the services of the petitioners. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, however,
contended that such a direction might be with a rider that the regularization shall be in terms of the Rules only. Needless to state that if the Rules prohibit regularization, the question of regularizing would not arise.
Consequently, taking the circumstances of the petitioners into consideration that they have been in service for over 25 years and that the 2nd respondent has become defunct, the DRDA, Nellore District is directed to consider regularization of the services of the petitioners on humanitarian consideration.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly without costs. The contempt case is closed.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition and the contempt case, shall stand disposed of.
__________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J
25th February, 2013 cbs
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
WRIT PETITION No.21294 OF 1999 and CONTEMPT CASE No.433 of 2003
25th February, 2013
cbs
An institute called ‘Centre for Advancement of Technology in Rural Areas of Nellore (CATRAN)’ was established by the State Government with a view to advance appropriate modern technology in the Nellore District to go to the reach of rural artisans, non-agricultural labourers and other persons below poverty line. The petitioners were appointed by the District Collector as the Chairman of
SATRAN on a consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/-. The petitioners have been working with the 2nd respondent since 1988. The petitioners seek for regularization of their services. An interim order was passed in WPMP No.26711 of 1999 to continue the services of the petitioners pending disposal of the writ petition. Alleging that there was violation of the interim order, the petitioners preferred C.C.No.238 of 2000. On 19.06.2000, with an observation that as the Project Director
(2nd respondent) agreed to ensure work to the petitioners and effect payment of salaries at the end of each month, the contempt case was adjourned dispensing with the presence of the 2nd respondent before the Court. On 21.07.2000, the contempt case was closed ordering the disposal of the main case.
Sri R.N. Hemendranath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have been continuing in service ever since 1988, that some of them even have retired from service and that it would be just and proper to continue the remaining employees including the petitioners in the service of the 2nd respondent. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, Panchayat Raj, however pointed out that the 2nd respondent has become
defunct and the services of the petitioners have been utilized as on today by DRDA, Nellore District. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further contended that the petitioners were appointed on consolidated wages on temporary basis and that there is no provision to regularize the services of the petitioners.
Admittedly, the petitioners have put up more than a quarter century of service either with the 2nd respondent or with DRDA. In such circumstance, it would be just and reasonable to direct the concerned authority to consider regularization of the services of the petitioners. The learned Assistant Government Pleader however contended that such a direction should be with a rider that the regularization shall be in terms of the Rules only. Needless to state that if the Rules prohibit regularization, the question of regularizing would not arise.
Consequently, taking the circumstances of the petitioners into consideration that they have been in service for over 25 years and that the 2nd respondent has become defunct, the DRDA, Nellore District is directed to consider regularization of the services of the petitioners on humanitarian consideration.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly without costs.
The contempt case is closed.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners, working for over 25 years in a defunct institute, should be regularized by the succeeding authority.
Whether regularization equates to regular service or merely a one-time consideration.
How the superior court should direct the competent authority to consider regularization on humanitarian grounds.
Ambati Jayaramaiah and others
Commissioner, Rural Development
G. Anantha Ramu, District Collector
K.G. Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
