Dismissed

Pillarisetti Venkata Satish v. Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam

Telangana HC30 Dec 2013WP/9827/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking regularization of Prasadam packing services claimed maintenance of service and benefits. This Court held they were work-charged employees, not NMRs, without vacancies or selection, denying regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212 and dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition was dismissed; regularization of services denied.

Pillarisetti Venkata Satish Vs Sri Veera… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Writ Petition No.9827 of 2000

¶2

Date: 24.12.2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

Pillarisetti Venkata Satish and 7 others. … Petitioners

¶5

AND Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Annavaram, rep.by its Executive Officer, East Godavari District. and another.

¶6

… Respondents

¶7

HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR

¶8

Writ Petition No.9827 of 2000

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

The petitioners seek for a Writ of Mandamus to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date they completed five years of service and to give notional seniority and other benefits to the petitioners.

¶11

2. The petitioners were engaged by the respondent-Devasthanam from 01.07.1987 according to the petitioners to pack prasadam of Lord Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy. They further claim that they have been in continuous service even today.

¶12

The petitioners submitted that they were initially paid wages at the rate of Rs.18/- per day. The remuneration was reassessed from 1996 at the rate of Rs.0.04 paise

¶13

per each packet of Prasadam. The remuneration was enhanced to Rs.0.05 paise per packet from October, 1998 onwards. The respondent-Devasthanam has the practice of regularizing NMR workers after completion of five years service and that the same has become a policy decision of the Commissioner of Endowments. It is contended by the petitioners that the Commissioner of Endowments issued directions on 11.06.1993 to the executive officers of the Devasthanam to utilize the services of NMR workers. They also claimed that the High Court passed orders in W.P.No.13450 of 1991 and 13592 of 1991 and 25740 of 1998 directing the respondent herein to consider grant of scale of pay and regularize the services of the writ petitioners therein. The petitioners, therefore, claim that their services be regularized.

¶14

3. The respondent denied that the respondent engaged the petitioners for packing Prasadam. The petitioners were work-charged employees whose services were engaged by the respondent-Devasthanam occasionally as and when their services were needed. In 1996, the Trust Board resolved to engage workers on contract basis for packing Prasadam. Consequently, workers were employed on contract basis on a remuneration of Rs.0.04 paise per packet initially and Rs.0.05 paise per packet subsequently. The respondent contended that the work done by Bhotadi (Prasadam)

¶15

Section was done on piece-wise method and the persons in the section were not even NMRs or daily rated employees engaged by the Devasthanam. Where the petitioners were not daily wage labourers of the Devasthanam, their services cannot be regularized according to the respondent-Devasthanam.

¶16

4. The respondent filed additional counter contending that the petitioners were not appointed by any regular employment, so much so, the question of regularizing their services does not arise.

¶17

5. It has not been contended by the petitioners that the petitioners were selected by any process of selection and were appointed in the Prasadam Packing Section. One of the fundamental conditions of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 is that the casual/daily employee must have been selected on regular basis. Further, there should be availability of vacancies for absorbing such employees as regular employees. It has not been whispered by the petitioners that vacancies are available to absorb the petitioners by way of regularization.

¶18

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been working ever since on 01.07.1987 and once they completed five years of service, they ought to have been regularized in terms of

¶19

G.O.Ms.No.212. There is no dispute that the petitioners have been working since 01.07.1987. However, it is the contention of the respondent-Devasthanam that the petitioners were never the employees of the Devasthanam and that the petitioners were never selected in the regular selection process. They also contend that there are no vacancies to appoint the petitioners by way of regularization.

¶20

7. None of the ingredients envisaged by G.O.Ms.No.212 are applicable to the case of the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, cannot seek for regularization of their services. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶21

Dr. K.G. Shankar, J. Date: 30.12.2013 Isn

Pillarisetti Venkata Satish v. Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pillarisetti Venkata Satish v. Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam

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

Chapala Pushpa Raju Vs State of a.P., rep. by its P.P.

T. Sai Reddy, Vs A.P.S.R.T.C.

Samanapalli Pochaiah, Vs Sri Ram Mohan

Sri Dummala Loka Bhakta Lalitha Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Lagisetty Narasimha Swamy Vs Beesam Anjaneyulu

Mohammed Yousuf Vs Sri. Hiralal Samariya, I.A.S.