Partly allowed

The Zonal Manager v. Md.Abdul Razzaq

Telangana HC13 Jun 2014WA/575/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed the appeal. It held the respondent entitled to regularization from 01.09.1997 and notional seniority but denied monetary benefits due to delay in making representations. The appointing authority cannot interfere with regularization when a clear vacancy existed during the panel's life.

What did the court decide?

Regularization of services with effect from 01.09.1997 and notional seniority; denial of monetary benefits due to respondent's delay.

The Zonal Manager Vs Md.Abdul Razzaq — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND

¶2

*** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM**

¶3

+Writ Appeal No.575 of 2014

¶4

% Dated 13.06.2014

¶5

# The Zonal Manager, LIC of India and another

¶6

….Appellants

¶7

$ Md. Abdul Razzaq.

¶8

….Respondent

¶9

! Counsel for the appellants : Sri Ravindra Bharati ^ Counsel for respondent : Sri K.L.N.Swamy

¶10

< GIST:

¶11

> HEAD NOTE:

¶12

? Cases referred:

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM W.A.No.575 of 2014

¶14

JUDGMENT: (Per LNR,J)

¶15

This writ appeal is filed assailing the order, dated 19.09.2013 in W.P.No.12365 of 2009. The sole respondent herein filed the writ petition with a prayer to declare the action of the appellants in not regularizing his services with effect from 01.09.1997 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. A consequential direction for regularization was also sought.

¶16

Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellants issued a notification in the year 1991 inviting applications for various posts in different Districts in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶17

Even while the recruitment process was in progress, the Government of India took a policy decision to create reservation in favour of OBC candidates. Therefore, a supplementary notification was issued in the year 1995 in this behalf. It was clearly mentioned that the reservation would apply to vacancies that were already notified.

¶18

According to the guidelines issued by the appellants, to be followed in the matter of selection of candidates, for each vacancy, a panel with double the number of vacancies would be prepared. In the supplementary notification, it was mentioned that six candidates would be empanelled for the posts of Typists reserved for OBC candidates.

¶19

The name of the respondent figured at serial No.3 in the list of six candidates. The first two candidates were issued orders of appointment on 01.09.1997. The respondent however was appointed on temporary basis. His services were regularized only through order, dated 30.11.2007. He pleaded that he is entitled to be treated as having been appointed on regular basis with effect from 01.091997.

¶20

The writ petition was opposed by the appellants. According to them, a list of OBC candidates no doubt was prepared for the posts of Typists and that the respondent figured at serial No.3. It was however stated that the third vacancy was found to be earmarked for O.C. candidates and by the time, the vacancy reserved for OBC candidates has arisen, and the respondent was appointed, there was delay. They pleaded that the respondent cannot be extended the benefit of regularization with effect from 01.09.1997. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, taking the view that the respondent was entitled to be appointed along with other two candidates.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶22

It is not in dispute that the name of the respondent came to be included at serial No.3 in the list of 6 candidates.

¶23

In the guidelines issued by the Corporation, it was clearly mentioned that a panel with double the number of vacancies must be prepared. From the fact that a panel of six candidates was prepared, it is evident that the vacancies were three. Therefore, the plea of the respondent that the third vacancy was not available for OBC candidates cannot be accepted, particularly when a panel exclusively for OBC candidates was prepared.

¶24

The respondent was in fact appointed as Typist, at a time when the other two candidates were appointed in the same post but on regular basis. Obviously because he was provided employment and salary at pay scale was being paid, he did not feel the serious impact of non-appointment on regular basis. Therefore, he went on making representations. It was only in the year 2007, that the appointment of the respondent was treated on regular basis.

¶25

Once the respondent was subjected to the process of selection, in pursuance of the notification and there existed a clear vacancy, during the life of panel, he was entitled to be appointed against the vacancy. An additional factor in his favour is that, he was discharging the same duties as did the other two persons in the panel and there was no break in service. Learned single judge took note of these and other relevant aspects and allowed the writ petition. We do not find any basis to interfere with the direction for regularization of the services of the respondent with effect from 01.10.1997 and extension of other attendant benefits, such as notional seniority. The order however is silent as to the payment of difference of wages, if any. Since there was delay on the part of the respondent, we direct that he shall not be entitled to any monetary benefit, on account of the relief granted to him. However, his services with effect from 01.09.1997 shall be counted for seniority, grant of increments and retirement benefits.

¶26

The writ appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶28

______________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶29

Date: 13.06.2014 Note: L.R.Copy to be marked. JSU

¶30

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶31

W.A.No.575 of 2014

¶32

Date: 13.06.2014

¶33

JSU

The Zonal Manager v. Md.Abdul Razzaq

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Zonal Manager v. Md.Abdul Razzaq

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

Telangana Boggu Gani Karmika Sangam Vs Bantu Saraiah

Sri Laxmi Satyanarayana Oil Mill Khammam Vs Commissioner of Income Tax Hyderabad

The Commissioner of Income Tax Hyd. Vs M/S Coromandal Fertilizers Ltd.Secbad

Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Vs J.Ramana Devi

The Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Ltd. Vs M.v.Somasundaram S/o Vsr Somarajulu

B. Vimaladevi Vs R.B.V.R.R. Womens College