Dismissed

The Ap STate Housing Corporation Limited, rep.by its v. Y.Dayanand

Telangana HC21 Feb 2022WA/1070/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ appeal against the regularization of a physically handicapped Scheduled Caste employee. The court held that the appointment was made via employment exchange, benefits were granted to similarly placed persons, and no interference was warranted.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Ap STate Housing Corporation Limited… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD}

¶2

MONDAY,^{THE TWENTYFIRST DAYOFfEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{THE CHIEFJUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA} AND rHE HoNouRABLE^{sRl LusiiCE ABHINAND KUMAR sHAVlLl}

¶5

WRIT APP^{EAL NO1070} F 2007

¶6

Writ Appeal^{under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appealfiled against the} order dated^{26 2.2007 andmade in W P No 5400of 1997' on the file of the High} Co u rt.

¶7

Between

¶8

lTheAndhraPradeshStateHousingCorporationLimited,rep.byitslvlanaging "^{?I:tl3''l'I]d"J3n3!.rar""utiveDirector,AndhraPradeshStateHousing'} Ho usi^{n g corpo rationLimited}

¶9

. *ygtg;,'lSl.:$l,'ltt;'lUi."'iE't'''e R.R.District,^Hyderabad ...Appellants/Respondents

¶10

AND

¶11

Y.Davanand,^{S/o.Haring.rayana'Aged 33 years'.A!te} R.R.District nd er-cu m-Watchman,^{East Division'} n"ilil' diri'"th^{State Hotising CorporationLimrleo'} Hyderabad^{RJg HYderaoao}

¶12

...ResPondenUPetitioner

¶13

ffin151CPCprayingthatintheCircumStancesstatedin the affidavit^{fired in support of the petition,the High courtmay be pleasedto} suspend^{the operation of judgmentin WPNo54OOol 2007 daled 26 2 2007} pending disPosal^{of Writ APPeal'}

¶14

Counsel^{for the Appellants:SRI'C' BUTCHI BABU}

¶15

Counsel^{for the Respondent:SRIM' PANDU RANGARAO}

¶16

The Court^{delivered the following: JUDGMENT}

¶17

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF^{JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA}

¶18

AND

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{ABHINAND KUMARSHAVILI}

¶20

WRIT APPEAL No.1O7O^ql2OO7

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

'lhe presenl u'rit arppctrl is arisilig out oI order datcd '26.O2.2OO7 passcd in W.P.No.5400 ol 1997

¶23

'l'he Iacts ol'thc ciLse rcvr:ai lhat the rc sponde n t -enlpL;r'ec :r pi-u,sicaliv hanclicarppccl^{pcrsott bclot-tgingto Schedr-rledClaste} commLrnitv u as appoit]ted orr^{t1're post ofatte nder-cIIn-r-} u'atchman. It is irr.r unclisplrtcil. Lt(ri^{that Itis Ilamr'rt'rs} lorrvarcled I:v the enrl;lovntettt cxcl.tatlqc^{()ll a request made l>r'} thc emplo],er. Hou'ever, he^{s'a.s appoinLedonlS'for a periocl of} 89 days lr'ith a llxed salary ol^{Rs.7O0/ - per month. In spirco1'} the lact that large number of^{enployeesrverereguiarizedancl hc} \:iis not regularized, he came '"tp belore this^{Court b}' filinga} rvriL petition. A ground u'as taken b1, the^{employee belorcthe} le:rrned Singlc Judgc that in identical^{circumstances i1 \ rit} pctition uas prelcrrccl bv iclenticalh^{pllrccc1pct'sot'i s,/ cmplot'ecs} cltrimir.rg regularisatron i.e.,^{\i.P.No.l0651 o1' 199(r andt1-rrs} CoLrrt in the aforesttid casc htrs^{cliret'tcci qrant ol regttlirr'} 1:ir.1 scale Lo tlte ltctitirtr-icrs thercln to^thc ll()sts^{otl $hich thcr trt'rtr}

¶24

¶25

\r'orl<ing and lhereaftcr^{the bencfil u'asgrelntedto icier-rrically} placed persons.^{The emp1o5'eeu'as claiming a similar benefit'} Hor,r,ever, the^{present appellants cameLIp $'ith a plea that lile)} rvrit petitioner / employec^{was notappolnted againsta} sanctiotted post^{and hisappointmellt '"vas irregularaud} lherefore, he is^{l-tol entitlcd lor an1' reliefr'r'i-Latsoevcr kindThe} learnecl Singlc^{.lr-rclgc hits consideredall thc documetltsot-t} recrrrd ancl also^{gorlethrougl-i tl1(r rcqLlcstnl:rdc1;r' thc cmplovcr} to thc cnlplol-mcnr^{exchzrngc atrd zrlso lookeciilltothe} order dated 26.O9^{1992 and held thatthe} appoin tmcnt e mployee is er-r titlecl lor reg,tllarizatior.t^kecping 1n vlc\i G.O.Ms.No.2 12^{dated 22.O4.1994.}

¶26

The other important^{aspect of the caseis that duringthe} pendency of the^{present writ appeal, the employer-appellarrts in} their wisdom have^{conferredfic benefitof regularisationto the} respondent-employee^{by an order dated 28 06'2018' This Court} really fails to understand^{that if the appointmentis irregular as} per the stand of the^{appellants,what was the necessityfor} regularising the^{employee.ln the present case,sincethe} employee was sponsored^{by the employmentexchangeandhe is} a physically handicapped^{person belongingto scheduled caste} and other identically^{placed persons are regularised, this Court}