Dismissed

Government of Telangana v. K. Ilaiah

Telangana HC4 Oct 2023WA/970/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Writ Appeal against an order upholding the respondent's right to seek regularisation of services. The Court held the Single Judge was justified in directing authorities to consider the case given the employee's three decades of service.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal is dismissed; No costs; Pending miscellaneous applications to be closed.

Government of Telangana Vs K. Ilaiah — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BI F SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO:970 OF 2O23

¶7

writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters patent prefened against the order dated 14-06-2023 in W.P No. 33546 of 2022 on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

p9y9mn19nt of Telangana_, Fgp bt its^principal Secretary, Agriculture and uooperatton Department, 1st floor, B Block, BRK Bhavan, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶10

The Commisqiorer and _Director of Agriculture, Marketing Commiftee Govt. of I elangana, 1'' Floor, B Block BRK Bhavan, Tank Bund Road, Hvderabad.

¶11

ppeqal Grade.Secretary(lAC), Agriculture Market Committed, J'angaon. 4. rhe secretary/Person-r n-charse, noricuttural$2|;ltr51E$Sll jE[?Bito .

¶12

AND

¶13

(.-ll{ah, S/o Narasaiah, aged about 54 years Watchman/NMR: Rt/o H. No.S2-2, Post. Ambedkar Nagar, Jangaon Mandal and District.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER

¶15

IANO:2OF2 023

¶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 suspend the operation of the order passed in Wp.No.33546 of 2022, dt 14.06.2023 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal

¶17

Counsel for the Appetlants: ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶18

Counsel for Respondent: SRI R. BALA SUBRAHMANYAM

¶19

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶20

THE HON'B^{LE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KTIMAR SHAVILI} AND

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAMAVARAPURA"IESHWAR RAO}

¶22

Writ Aooeal No.9^{70 of2O23}

¶23

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Si Justice^{Abhinand Kumar Shauili)}

¶24

Aggrieved by the^{orders dated 14'06'2023in} W.P.No.33546^{of 2022 passed by the leamed SingleJudge, the} present Writ APPeal is^frled.

¶25

Heard learned Advocate^{General for the appellants and} Mr.R.Bala Subrahmanyam,^{Iearned counsel forthe} respondent.

¶26

Learned Advocate^{General for the appellanl s contended} that the^{respondent was working as NMR/DailyWage Worker} with the Agricultural^{MarketCommittee,Jangaon' since} Ol.O4.lg92 and the^{respondent was claiming regularisation of} his services.^{When hiscase was notconsideredfor} regularisation of^{services, therespondent has earlier} approached the Administrative^{Tribunal by frling O A'No'1256} of 1999 and the^{Administrative Tribunal was pleased to} dispose of the said O.A.^{vide ordersdated 23'02'2O01by} directing the appellants^{to consider the case of the respondent}

¶27

¶28

AKS,J & RRN,J wa_97O2023

¶29

for regularisation of services. Accordingly, the person-in-charge of Agricultural Market Committee has regularised the services of the respondent vide proceedings dated 3O.01 .2002. However, the Commissioner and Director of Marketing has examined the case of respondent and as the respondent has not completed f,rve years of service as on 25.11.1993 he had cancelled the regularisation orders vide proceedings dated 27.O2.2OO2. Aggrieved by tl e cancellation of regularisation, the respondent has approached the National Human Rights Commission and hnally, the case of the respondent was considered and the same was rejected vide proceedings dated 76.LO.2O2O, holding that the respondent is not entitled for regularisation of services, as he has not completed frve yea-rs of ser-vice as on 25.11.1993 and he is not entitled for regularisation of services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.2l2, F&P (Dept), dated 22.04.1994. Aggrieved by the said rejection orders, respondent has approached this Court by way of filing subject W.P.No.33546 of 2022 and the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the said Writ Petition vide orders dated 14.06.2023 by setting aside the rejection orders dated 16.10.2O2O and directed the appellants to consider the case of respondent for regularisation of his services in view of the law laid down bv the Hon'l:le

¶30

AKS,] & RRN,J \a 970 2023

¶31

¶32

Supreme Court in Sto:te of Karnataka Vs. Umadeuir and

¶33

R.sudhakar and another Vs. State ofTelanganaz.

¶34

Learned Advocate General for the appellants had further contended that the issue whether NMR emplovee can be regularised or not has to be considered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.O4.1994. As admittedly, the respondent has not completed hve years of service as on the cut off date, the appellants have^justified in rejecting the case and the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the rejection orders. Leerrned Advocate Genera,l for the appellants also relied upon the^judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unton of India Vs. Ilmo Deuis, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in^judicial review the Courts cannot issue Mandamus and direct the employer to regularise the Services of temporary employees ar-rd as it is a matter of policy of the State. Relying on the said Judgment, the learned Single Judge was not^justified 1n setting aside the rejection orders and directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for regularisation of services. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting

¶35

'^{2006 4 sccI} I Judgmetrt inWANo.3l I of 2019 of TS I{igh Court (dated 01.0(r.2021) r 2021 scc ontine sc 899

¶36

AKS,J & RRN,J wa_970 2023

¶37

¶38

1n aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge

¶39

W.P.No.33546 of 2022, dated. L4.06.2023.

¶40

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent had contended that respondent is working as NMR with effect from 01.04.1992 and infact the services of the respondent were regularised with the Agricultural Market Committee vide proceedings dated 30.01.2OO2. However, the Commissioner and Dtector of Marketing had cancelled his regularisation orders vide proceedings dated 27.O2.2OO2. Admittedly, the respondent has rendered more than three decades of service and even as on today, the respondent is working as NMR. The issue raised in tl.e Writ Appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umad.eui's casc (supra ll and the learned Single Judge has rightly directed tJ.e appellants to consider the case of the respondent for regularisation of services in view of the law laid down by the Hon'b1e Supreme Court and the learned Single Judge was justihed in setting aside the rejection orders as the rejection orders were passed mechanically without application of mind. The fact that the respondent is continuing for morc than three decades itself would demonstrate that there is a sanctioned

¶41

AKS,J & RRN,J ].J,a-9702023

¶42

¶43

I \

¶44

post and tlre Hon'lcle^{SupremeCourt in lltno Deui'scase} (supra 3/ has held that the^{employermay be directed to frame} the policy to regularise^{NMR workers or Daily Wage Workers'} Admittedly, the.^{respondenthas not framedany policy for} regularising sen'ices^{of DailyWage Worker who has rendered} more than^{three decades service.Therefore,there are no merits} in the writ^{petition and the same is liable to be dismissed'}

¶45

This Court,^{having consideredthe rival submissions} made by the^{parties,is of the consideredview that the learned} Single Judge^{was justified in disposingof W'P'No'33546 of} 2022 filed by the^{respondent by setting aside the rejection} orders dated^{16.LO.2O2O. As admittedly the respondent has} rendered more than^{three decades of serviceas NMR/DaiIy} Wage Worker,^{the lear-nedSingle Judge has rightly directedthe} appellants to consider^{the case of the respondent for} regularisation of^{servicesirr view of the law laid down by the} Hon'lrle Supreme^{Court inutnadeoi's case (supra 7) and} R.Sudhakar's case^{(supra 2)'Therefore, this Courtis not} inclined to interfere^{with the orders passedby the learned} Single Judge.