Dismissed

The Telangana State Tourism Development Corporation Limited v. Sabbu Rajamouli

Telangana HC12 Sept 2023WA/892/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ appeal, the Telangana High Court held that a previous judgment compelling disengagement did not apply when the contract employee was eligible for renewal and the government was considering post sanction. The court rejected the appeal and dismissed the petition dismissing the writ appeal.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 21.08.2023 in W.P. No.22938 of 2023 allowing continuation of service/dismissal of writ appeal. The Writ Appeal No.892 of 2023 has been dismissed.

The Telangana State Tourism Development… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 892 OF 2023

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent^preferred against the order dated 2110812023 in W P No.22938 of 2023 and^pass on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

1- The Telangana State Tourism Development Corporation Limited, 3-5-981 , Tourism House, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad - 29, Rep. by its tt/anaging Director

¶10

The lncharge General Manager^(Admn.), Telangana State^Tourism Development Corporation Limited, 3-5-981, Tourism House, Himayalnagar, HYderabad - 29

¶11

...APPELLANTS

¶12

AND'1. Sabbu Rajamouli, S/o. S.Komuraiah, Aged 60 years, Occ. Service of 2nd Respondent, Fl/o. H.No. 3-5-912,3rd Floor, N.Satyanarayana Reddy Bhavan, Himyatnagar, Hyderabad - 500 029

¶13

The State Government, Telangana State Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Note: No relief is claimed against Respondent No. 2 and it is a formal^party)

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

IA NO: 20F 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to stay the operation of the Judgment^passed in W.P. No.²²⁹³⁸ of^2023,Dated 21t8t2023.

¶17

c ou nse I ro r the Ap^perr a " "' 3H ff . J' ?Ifr iATS;,tf,iS8 TB?tIJf".,

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI N. KRISHNA RAO, SR. COUNSEL^FOR SRI N. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: GP FOR^TOURISM

¶20

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶21

¶22

THE HON'tiLE SRI^{JUSTICE ABHINANDKUMAR SI{A/ILI} AND

¶23

THE HON'BLl: SRI^{IUSTICE NAMAVARAPURAJESI{VVAIIRAO} WRIT APPEAL^No.892O 2()2 3

¶24

IUDGMENT:^{(p€r AKS,I)}

¶25

This Writ Appeal is filed^{aggrievedby the or-der',dated} 21.OA.2O23,^{pa:;sedin W.P.No.22938of 2023 by a l:arned Single} Judge of this^{Co rrt.}

¶26

Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar,^{Iearned SeniorClunse representing} Sri M.S.Anwar^S ddiqui,^{learned StandingCounseltor Telarrgana State} Tourism Develotment^{Corporationand Sri N.Krshna Rlo, earned} Senior Counsel^{representingSri N.PurushothanRedcly,earned} cou nsel for respondent^No.1.

¶27

Learned ienior Counsel^{appearingfor t-le al)prllla 1ts had} contended that^{-espondentNo.1 was appointed on con-rirctbasisas} General Helper, Grade-I on^{04.09.2000and he has ccntirlLled on} contract basis. Inltially,^{the tenure of contract servi:ewtt:; for a} period of two years and later, it was extended^{for anotlle- tv/o years} and again on ne3d basis,^{respondent No.1 was ergagetl t'|y lvily ofa} fresh contract 'rom time to time and the^{plesent (lon -ractof} Even appointment of respondent No.1 is^{valid upto :11.08.2i 23} before expiry of^{:he contract period, respondent No.1 aplrlached this}

¶28

¶29

AKS,J & RRN.J W.A.No.892 of 2023

¶30

¶31

Court by filing W.P.No.22938 of 2023 contending that he should be continued in service up to the age of 61 years or till State Government takes a decision in respect of regularizing the contract employees working with the appellants and the learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition^y,de order, dated 21.O8.2023 directing the appellants to continue respondent No.1 in service till he attains the age of 61 years or till a decision is taken on the regularization of contract workers, which is likely to be taken by the State Government, whichever is earlier. Learned Single ludge further directed respondent No.1 to submit a representation and also directed the appellants to consider the said representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellants.

¶32

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants had further contended that in para 5 of the impugned order of the learned^Single Judge, a positlve mandamus is^given to continue respondent^{No.1 in} service till he attains the age of 61^years or^till a^{decision is taken by} the State Government on regularization of the^{contractworkers.} Learned Senior Counsel further contended that as^{of now, no decision} is taken by the State Government either to continue^contract employees up to the age of 61^years or to^{regularizethe services of} the contract employees. In the absence of the^{same,there cannot be}

¶33

\K'... & IIIiN,J <sup>., N0 S'll ol-lrrll

¶34

)

¶35

a positive mand. mus directing the appellants to continue^-esl)rlndent No.1 on contract basis till he attains the age of 61^years.

¶36

Learned S:nior Counsel for the appellants had relied Lrpon a judgment render:d by a Division Bench of this Couft in W A.11o.1362 of 2018 and W.F.No.315B4 of 2018, dated 01.03.2019, r.rhere,in the Division Bench h,rs held that if the tenure of the contra(lt^period has come to an end, then disengaging of such contrlct ernployee is a non-stigmatic orler and came to a conclusion :hat th| o-tler of engagement itselF qives the authority the right to diser g;rge as per Clause 8 of the^(:ontract entered in between the f arties tlrerr-,in and contended that silce the contract of respondent No.1 ha:; come to an end on 31.08.2( 2.1, the question of continuing respon,jent No.1 beyond the tenu'e of contract would not arise and ther3Fo-e, the learned Single Ju Jge was not justified in directing the ;^{pgrell,lr.rts} to continue respond:nt No.1 in service till he attain; the a,le of 61 years or till the !;tate Government takes a decision on th: issue of regularization of⁽ ontract workers Therefore, appr-opriat e orcers be passed. on merits by setting aside the order passe^,d by the l,:,arned Single Judge in \A P.No.22938 of 2023, dated 21.08.2023 anc allow the writ a ppeal.

¶37

'.i

¶38

¶39

AKS,] & IIRN,, W.A No.892 of 2023

¶40

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 had contended that respondent No.1 was appointed on contract basis on 04.09.2000 and ever-since he has been discharging his duties to the best satisfaction of his superiors and everyone concerned and the contention of the appellants that there is no sanctioned post is totally incorrect. The fact that the appellants are continuing respondent No.1 for more than two decades itself demonstrates that there is a sanctioned post. The issue whether the contract employees are entitled to continue up to 61 years was taken by the State Government and the State Government was pleased to enhance the age of superannuation of contract employees to 61 years and the issue whether the contract employees are entitled for regularization or not is pending before the State Government. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly disposed of the writ petition by directing respondent No.1 to submit a representation and upon such representation being made, the appellants were also directed to consider the said representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Therefore, there are no merits in the appeal.

¶41

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that the Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.1362 of 2018 and W.P.No.31584 of 2018, dated 01.03.2019, has no application to the

¶42

r\K S r/( t{ti..1 \V . (.f⁽⁾² of 2(ll^l

I I

, t

instant case, as admittedly,^{respondent No.1 was not c is:ngagedby} the appellants arrd the Division Bench^{of this Courthas cor sid3redthe} issue whether di3engaging the contract^{worker aft:r tenurehascome} to an end woul i not amount to stigmatic order. In^{tltosr: set of} circumstances, tle Division Bench has^{rightlyhel<1 that arr e rrployee} cannot be contilued beyond the tenure^specifie dⁱⁿ the^(cntract. Admittedly, the ,rppellant-Corporation is^{pursuingthe m} ltler^{nith the} State Governmelt for sanctloning of the^posts, so as .o en,tble the appellants to tal e a decision for regularizing the :;ervict:s of :,tntract workeTs. As adrlittedly, such exercise in respect of regullri2ation of contract employe^,es is under conslderation. The learned S ngle Judge was^justified in⁽ isposing of the writ petition by d recting^-es ),lndent No.1 to submit . representation and further direc:ing tlre appellants to pass appropri:te orders on the said representati rn. Trerefore, this Court is not incl ned to interfere with the order, dated 2t.O5.2O23, passed in W.P.No.22938 of 2023 by the learned Single luCg€ of this Court.

¶47

Accordinglr,,. the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

.z'

¶49

¶50

AKS.J & ItRN.r
W.A.No.692 of 2021 a

¶51

Miscellaneous Applications, if any,^{pendingin this Writ Appeal}

¶52

shall stand closed.

¶53

SD/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII secHpr.r oFFlcER

¶54

To,

¶55

'I . One CC to SRt M.S. ANWAR StDDteUt (SC FOR TS TDC) tOpUCl 2. One CC to SRt N. PURUSHO_THAM REDDi, A;vocate [OptJC]^-. 3. Tulo CCs to Gp FOR TOUR|SM, High Court iorif,e Stat6 of iJ'"ngrnu at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶56