Allowed

Mr.G.Venkateshwara Rao, v. A.P. Genco, Vidyuth Soudha

Telangana HC6 Nov 2014WP/13934/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A fertilizer notified judgment disposed of writ appeals and petitions concerning the regularization of casual laborers who were appointed Junior Plant Attendants with relaxed educational qualifications. The court upheld the lower order granting regularization backdated to 1996 but clarified that these workers deserve junior status relative to those regularized in 1998 with full qualifications.

What did the court decide?

Regularization upheld with appointment date fixed from 06.12.1996 for pay scales only; petitioners treated as juniors to 1998 regularized staff; no arrears of differential wages.

Mr.G.Venkateshwara Rao, Vs A.P. Genco… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶4

+ Writ Appeal Nos.404 of 2006 & 492 of 2009 and Writ Petition Nos.3383, 13318, 13934 & 14136 of 2007

¶5

%Date: 06.11.2014

¶6

#A.P.Genco represented by its Managing Director, Hyderabad and another. …appellants. and

¶7

$ K.Satyanarayana and others.

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

! Counsel for appellants: Sri C.Raghu

¶10

^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri R.Raghunandan

¶11

< GIST:

¶12

> HEAD NOTE:

¶13

? Cases referred

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶15

AND

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶17

Writ Appeal Nos.404 of 2006 & 492 of 2009 and Writ Petition Nos.3383, 13318, 13934 & 14136 of 2007

¶18

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶19

In this batch of writ appeals and writ petitions, common questions of fact and law arise for consideration. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.

¶20

The parties herein are referred to as arrayed in W.A.No.404 of 2006.

¶21

The appellants are the successors to the erstwhile A.P. Electricity Board. The respondents were engaged as Casual Labourers, mostly in generating stations, for maintenance. The Board issued proceedings in the year 1997, for regularisation of the persons engaged on casual basis.

¶22

The qualifications for the post of Junior Plant Attendant (J.P.A.), were prescribed through B.P.Ms.No.1048, dated 23.09.1989, as pass in 10^th class and I.T.I., or Vocation Course in Electrical Trade. Through proceedings, dated 06.12.1996, such of the casual workers, who have fulfilled the qualifications stipulated in B.P.Ms.No.1048, dated 23.09.1989, were regularised as J.P.As. The respondents filed W.P.No.8389 of 2002, complaining that the stipulation of qualifications in B.P.Ms.No.1048, dated 23.09.1989, is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and that their services ought to have been regularised with effect from 06.12.1996, on par with other candidates. The writ petition was opposed by the appellants by filing a detailed counter-affidavit. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition, directing that the services of the respondents shall be regularised with effect from 06.12.1996, and their scales of pay shall be determined on notional basis. It was, however, directed that they shall not be entitled for arrears of differential wages. The appellants feel aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶23

Heard Sri C.Raghu, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, and Sri R.Raghunandan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.

¶24

The A.P. Electricity Board has gone for expansion of the generation as well as distribution. Since considerable manpower was required, persons were engaged on ad hoc, contract or casual basis. Naturally those employees brought pressure for regularisation of their services. One of the major steps taken by the Board was issuance of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997, providing for regularisation of casual workers. Similar measures were taken in respect of persons, who are engaged in

¶25

generating stations and maintenance of sub-stations.

¶26

The Board decided to regularise the services of the eligible persons as J.P.As. The qualifications for that post were stipulated under B.P.Ms.No.1048, dated 23.09.1989. It reads:

¶27

“The A.P. State Electricity Board after careful consideration prescribes the following qualifications for the post of Helpers.

¶28

i. A pass in SSLC/SSC/10^th Class

¶29

ii. A pass in ITI preferably with Electrician Trade or

¶30

iii. Vocation course in Electrical trade.”

¶31

It is not in dispute that such of the persons who have fulfilled the qualifications, referred to above, have been appointed by transfer as J.P.As., with effect from 06.12.1996. The appellants treated the qualifications stipulated in Clause (1), on the one hand, and Clauses (2) and (3), on the other, as separate and exclusive. The respondents herein did not pass SSLC or 10^th Class. However, on completion of

¶32

8^th Class, they have joined ITI and completed the course. The version of the respondents was that, once they passed ITI, they deserve to be treated on par with other candidates, who too possess ITI qualifications, though they may have studied 10^th Class. For a considerable time, this did not weigh with the appellants. Ultimately, it was in 2000 that the appellants issued a memo, dated 01.12.2000. It reads:

¶33

“All Unions have been persistently requesting for conversion of Mazdoors, those possessing anyone of the qualifications i.e. I.T.I. or SSC/10^th as J.P.As., duly relaxing norms prescribed for J.P.A., which contemplates both the educational qualifications i.e. I.T.I. and S.S.C. As per the orders issued in Memo No.DS(Per)/ DM.6/PO.J2/493/90-1, dt.23.10.1990 and B.P.(P.&G-Per)Ms.No.369, dt.11.12.1990, no conversion as J.P.As from lower or equivalent category shall be allowed after 23.09.1989 unless the incumbents possess both SSC and ITI qualifications prescribed in B.P.Ms.No.1048, dated23.09.1989. However, after careful consideration of the issue, taking cognisance of the fact that earlier, SSC was not a pre-requisite qualification for admission in I.T.I. an hence APGENCO, decided that the Mazdoors possessing I.T.I. qualification shall be appointed as J.P.As, on appointment by transfers duly relaxing the prescribed SSC/10^th qualification, as a special case against existing vacancies of J.P.As, on one time basis as per seniority,

¶34

eligibility and suitability, subject to completion of their period of probation. All the Chief Engineers/Superintending Engineers/ Divisional Engineers of Generating Stations are requested to take necessary action accordingly.”

¶35

From this, it becomes clear that the respondents were directed to be appointed as J.P.As., duly relaxing the qualifications stipulated in B.P.Ms.No.1048, dated 23.09.1989. Accordingly, the respondents were appointed as J.P.As.

¶36

In the writ petitions filed by them, the respondents challenge not only the memo, dated 01.12.2000, but also B.P.Ms.No.1048, dated 23.09.1989 and other relevant proceedings. According to them, the stipulation of pass in 10^th Class itself was not proper.

¶37

We are of the view that the challenge to B.P.Ms.No.1048, dated 23.09.1989, virtually became nugatory or redundant, once the respondents were extended the benefit of appointment as J.P.As., by relaxing those very qualifications. If they were of the view that the stipulation of the qualification itself is wrong, they were not supposed to reap the benefit under memo, dated 01.12.2000. Conversely, once they have availed the benefit under memo, dated 01.12.2000, they cannot challenge B.P.Ms.No.1048, dated 23.09.1989.

¶38

However, once the appellants have relaxed the qualifications and appointed the respondents as J.P.As., the date of such appointment ought to have been 06.12.1996, as was done in the case of other candidates, who were appointed in the year 1998. This can be for the limited purpose of fixation of pay scales for the respondents, who were discharging the same functions as those that were appointed as J.P.As., in the year 1998, with effect from 06.12.1996. The learned Single Judge granted the relief in those lines and we do not find any basis to interfere with the same.

¶39

However, the apprehension of the appellants as well as J.P.As., who have been appointed in the year 1998, that the respondents herein may claim seniority over them, cannot be ignored. Since the respondents herein i.e. the writ petitioners, did not hold the same qualifications as the persons regularised in 1998, they deserve to be treated as juniors to them.

¶40

With this clarification, we dispose of the writ appeals and writ petitions, upholding the order passed by the learned Single Judge. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

The miscellaneous petitions filed in these appeals and writ petitions shall

¶42

also stand disposed of.

¶43

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶44

_____________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J.

¶45

Date:06.11.2014 L.R.copy to be marked. GJ

Mr.G.Venkateshwara Rao, v. A.P. Genco, Vidyuth Soudha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.G.Venkateshwara Rao, v. A.P. Genco, Vidyuth Soudha

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

Commissioner of Income Tax III Vs Unique Plastic (P) Ltd.

M/s. Ahmed Garments, Vs The Chief Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise

Siri Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nafeesunnhis Begum

B. Shiva Shanker Prasad Vs Andhra Pradesh Genco,Rep. by its Managing Director

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Davy Mckee [London] Ltd.

Gajjam Anjaiah Vs The Income Tax Officer