Petitioners, appointed on daily wages under 1999 notifications, challenged prospective regularization via 2009 Government orders, claiming entitlement to regular status from initial appointment. The Court dismissed the petition.
Petition dismissed; no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.
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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 14991 of 2010
Date : 13.3.2018
Between:
K Srinu S/o late K Samuel 32 years R/o Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy district
…..Petitioner
And
Govt of A P Rep by its Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, R & B (Tr.II) Secretariat, Hyderabad and others
…..Respondents
The Court made the following:
PNRJ WP 14991_2010
2
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.14991 of 2010
ORAL ORDER:
On 10.10.1999 recruitment notification was issued for recruitment to the post of Drivers, Conductors and Shramiks in Hyderabad city Region and Ranga Reddy Region. Petitioners responded to the said recruitment notification, selected, empanelled and were subjected to training. It appears, petitioners have also worked during the strike period when regular employees went on strike for more than 21 days. They were employed on daily wage basis in the year 2001-02 as conductors on various dates as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. They continued in service on daily wage basis till their services were regularized w.e.f. 1.7.2009. In this writ petition, petitioners challenge orders of the Government in G.O.Ms No. 145 Transport, Roads & Buildings (Tr.II) Department dated 1.7.2009 directing regularization prospectively and consequential orders of the respondent corporation regularizing services prospectively and consequently, petitioners seek direction to regularize their services from the date of their initial appointment or from date of completion of 240 days as extended to other similarly situated persons.
3.1. According to learned counsel for petitioners, petitioners were subjected to regular selection process and empanelment. Recruitment was against existing vacancies. Their
PNRJ WP 14991_2010
3
appointment though described as daily wage, it should be treated as regular and continuous and therefore their services ought to have been regularized from date of their initial appointment on daily wage basis. Thus, regularizing their services only with effect from 1.7.2009 is ex-facie illegal, amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and authority and is illegal. Learned counsel would also contend that batch-mates of petitioners who were similarly recruited and appointed were also regularized from date of appointment on daily wage basis and not extending the same benefit to petitioners amounts to discrimination among the same class of people and therefore arbitrary. It also amounts to unfair labour practice.
3.2. Learned counsel would alternatively submit that respondent corporation granting regularization on completion of 240 days and said policy must be extended uniformly to all similarly situated persons and therefore the services of petitioners ought to have been regularized on completion of 240 days.
3.3. By placing reliance on decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. 20440 of 2000 dated 24.2.2003, he would submit that this Court directed regularization of services of persons similarly situated to petitioners on completion of 240 days. The said decision was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1897 of 2003 dated 28.9.2011 and SLP (C) No.002417 of 2012 was dismissed on 30.1.2012. Principle laid down by this Court in the said writ petition ought to be extended to petitioners.
3.4. He would further submit that there is no provision to appoint employees on daily wage basis in the services of the
PNRJ WP 14991_2010
4
respondent corporation and alien concept cannot be introduced and same was introduced only to deprive the service benefits to which a regular employee is entitled to. The manner in which services of petitioners were utilized would amount to exploitation of labour and respondent corporation being an entity of the State cannot indulge in such practices. The services of the petitioners were required and their services are utilized continuously until their services are regularized. Thus, there was requirement of their services and such requirement was continuous and regular, that being so, denying the service rendered by petitioners before 1.7.2009 is ex-facie illegal.
3.5. Learned counsel for petitioners would therefore submit that condition imposed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.145 dated 1.7.2009 directing regularization only prospectively and consequential orders are liable to be set aside. He would submit that as no counter affidavit is filed opposing prayer of petitioners to set aside cut-off date in the GO, it is deemed that respondent Government has opposed contention of petitioners, therefore the clause fixing cut-off date is liable to be declared as illegal and therefore consequently petitioners are entitled to computation of entire service as regular service.
3.6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in
PNRJ WP 14991_2010
5
U.P. State Electricity Board Vs Pooran Chandra Pandey and others1 , Jivanlal Vs. Pravin Krishna, Principal Secretary and others2 .
4.1. Per contra , Sri Pravin Kumar, appearing for respondent corporation would submit that initial recruitment itself was on daily basis; petitioners never protested when they were appointed on daily wage basis and continued in said post till their services were regularized. But for order of the Government in G.O.Ms No. 145 dated 1.7.2009, their services could not have been regularized. He would submit that the Government earlier granted permission to the corporation vide G.O.Ms No.285 Transport, Roads and Buildings (Tr.II) Department dated 5.10.2007 to regularize casual employees working for long time in 3750 posts then available. In terms of the Government orders, services of casual employees were regularized. In the process, 603 posts remained unfilled for various reasons. Further, as some more casual employees were demanding for regularization, permission to regularize casual employees in the resultant unfilled vacancies and some other vacancies subsequently available was granted vide G.O.Ms No. 145 dated 1.7.2009.
4.2. He would submit, retrospective regularization claim of petitioners cannot be granted as then existing vacancies were filled up by regularizing services of casual employees working much prior to joining in service by petitioner and were all seniors.
1 (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 736
2 (2016) 15 SCCC 747
PNRJ WP 14991_2010
6
4.3. By placing reliance on the judgment of learned single Judge in W P No. 14783 of 2010 and batch, he would submit that this Court only granted regularization of services with effect from date when employees selected in pursuant to notification dated 10.10.1999 were regularized in terms of G.O.Ms No. 285 dated 5.10.2007. Petitioners herein were also appointed in pursuant to the very same recruitment notification and their services are regularized in the consequent vacancies in pursuant to G.O.Ms.No. 285 dated 5.10.2007 and as per orders in G.O.Ms No. 145 dated 1.7.2009.
4.4. Learned standing counsel placed reliance on decisions of Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs Jasmer Singh and others3 , Registrar General of India and another Vs V.Thippa Setty and others4 , Union of India and others Vs Sheela Rani5 .
3 (1996)11 SCC 77
4 (1998) 8 SCC 690
5 (2007) 15 SCC 230
PNRJ WP 14991_2010
7
PNRJ WP 14991_2010
8
Employer cannot be faulted if he implements austerity measures and reduces employment. These facts cannot be ignored to direct retrospective regularization.
PNRJ WP 14991_2010
9
seniority of the employees already working. In Registrar General of India , Supreme Court held regularization of casual/daily wage workers must be done prospectively and regularization from back date will disturb seniority of regularly appointed employees in that cadre.
PNRJ WP 14991_2010
10
as contended by learned counsel for petitioners. However, the observations and directions in P.Laxmojirao are relevant for this case also. The Supreme Court held that employee has no legal right to claim regularization retrospectively.
13. In P.Laxmojirao supreme Court observed as under:
“18. In view of this peculiar situation and in order to avoid the anomalies that might otherwise ensue, while we hold that the respondent employees have failed to establish their legal right to get the status of regular employees right from the date of their initial appointment on daily-wage basis and the respective dates of regularization assigned to the respondents cannot be legally faulted, we are inclined to mould the relief in modification of the directions given in the judgments under appeal and direct as follows:
If any of the conductors, junior to the respondents in the relevant seniority list of the concerned Division/Region, have got the benefit of seniority and regularization OR are entitled to get the same by virtue of the judgments that have become final, then the respondents who are seniors to them, shall be given the same benefit on the same principle.”
right to claim retrospective regularization.
6 (2004) 2 SCC 433
7 (2008) 1 SCC 210
PNRJ WP 14991_2010
11
their services were regularized prospectively. Having regard to the terms of notification and nature of their appointment, it cannot be said that petitioners were illegally treated in the matter of regularization.
P NAVEEN RAO,J
DATE: 13-03-2018 tvk/kkm
PNRJ WP 14991_2010
12
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.14991 OF 2010
Date : 13.03.2018
Tvk/kkm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners entitled to retrospective regularization from date of initial daily wage appointment?
Whether regularization of daily wage employees can be retrospective without disturbing seniority of existing regular employees?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
U.P. State Electricity Board Vs Pooran Chandra PandeyDistinguished¶58
U.P. State Electricity Board Vs Pooran Chandra Pandey
Union of India and others Vs Sheela RaniRelied on¶54
Sheela Rani
Registrar General of India and another Vs V.Thippa SettyRelied on¶54
Registrar General of India and another Vs V.Thippa Setty
State of Haryana and others Vs Jasmer SinghRelied on¶54
State of Haryana and others Vs Jasmer Singh
Divisional Manager, APSRTC Vs. P.Lakshmoji RaoRelied on¶62
Divisional Manager, APSRTC Vs. P.Lakshmoji Rao
2 provisions across 1 enactments
K Srinu
Govt of A.P.
P. Naveen Rao
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
