Disposed

Smt.M.Suseela, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Oct 2023WP/29972/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana directed long-serving contingent workers to submit a representation seeking service regularization. The Court set aside the Tribunal's dismissal order without granting final regularization, leaving the decision to the respondents upon receipt of the representation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to submit representation within two weeks; Tribunal order set aside; Respondents to consider case within four months.

Smt.M.Suseela, Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

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

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 29972 OF 2016

¶8

Between:

¶9

'1 . Smt. M.Suseela, W/o Sri Shankar Rao, Aged 44 years, Occ. Unskilled Contingent Worker Office of DM and HO, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶10

1. Ch.Lalaiah, S/o Sri Krishnaiah Aged 49 years, Occ: Unskilled Contingent Worker Office of DM and HO, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶11

AND .

¶12

...PET|T!ONERS

¶13

The State of Telangana, rep. by Principal Secretary Health, l\rledical and Family Welfare Department Telangana Secrelariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Director of Public Health & Family Welfare, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶15

The District Medical & Health Officer Khammam, District at Khammam 4. The State of Telangana, rep. by Principal Secretary Finance Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, order or direction preferably Writ of mandamus, declaring the action the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners even though the petitioners are working since 31.02.1992 and 01.06.1993 respectively as full time contingent workers on par with others as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners lo grant all consequential benefits by setting aside the Order of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A.No.276112016 dated 14.o7.2016.

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016^{(WPMP. NO:37081oF 2016)}

¶19

Petition under Section¹⁵¹ CPC^{praying that in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the HighCourtmay be pleased to} consider and dispose of the representation^{of the petitioners dated12.05.2016to} regularize their services,^{pendingdisposal of the writ petition in the interestof} justice.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioners:^{SRIUJWAL BABU FORSRIKOWTURU PAVAN} KUMAR

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents:^{GP FOR SERVICES-ll}

¶22

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶25

Writ Petition No.29972 of 2016

¶26

ORDER i ll'r the li(),1'ble Sn Justice AbhuLatrtl Kumar Sturuili)

¶27

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners under Article-226 of the Constitution of India seeking a'Writ of Mandamus' by calling for records relating to the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative 1n Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal') O.A.No.276L of 20 16, dated la.O7.2016 and to quash the same.

¶28

Heard Mr. Ujwal Babu, learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing for the respondents.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were working as unskilled slnce contingent workers with the 3'd respondent, 1992 and 1993 onwards and they were seeking regularisation of their services, since they have put in

¶30

-E--Itt

¶31

Ai(,),1 & RRN,I r. I)^j(r972 20l')

¶32

¶33

more thalt three decadcs of scnrice. Learne<l c:ounsel for the pctitioners furtl-rcr cor-rtended that e:rrlier, thc petitioners had tiled O.A.No.94 15 of 2Ol2 trlong rvitl.r sevcral otLrer persons claiming minimum tirnr: scale of pay and thc Tribunal r.r,as plcased to dispose of thc said O.A vide orders, datccl 24.O4.2O15 by directing the respondents to extend minimum time scalc of pay Thereafter, the petitioners have approac:hecl the Tribunal by filing the present O.A.No.276l ol 2016 seeking a direction to regularise their serwices. but the Tribunal vide orders, datcd 18.07.2016 was pleased to dismiss the O.A withouL apprcciating anv of the contentions raised by thc petitioncrs.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners hacl further contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Karnatakq. Vs. (hnqdeuit has directed all the employers to frame a scheme for regularising the services of all temporary empioyees as one time measure. Admittedly, the petitioners have rcndered '^zoorlrysccr

¶35

AKS,'&RRN,J Np 2c)972 2016

¶36

-t

¶37

more than three^{(3) decadesofservice and their} services deserve to bc considered^{for regularisation in} terms o[ the larv laid down by^{the Honble Supreme} Court. Therefore, appropriate^{orders be passed in the} writ petition by setting aside the^{orders passed by the} Tribunal in O.A.No.276l of 2016,^{dated 18.07.2016} and further direct the respondents^{to consider the} cases of the petitioners for^{regularisationof their} service in terms of Lhe law^{laid down by the Honble} Supreme Court.

¶38

On the other hand,^{learned Government Pleader} appearing for the respondents^{had contendedthat the} Tribunal has dismissed the O.A^{preferred by the} petitioners on the ground that some of^{the persons} services were regularised by^{fraudulentmethodand} the same cannot be extended.^{As admittedly,since the} petitioners have rendered considerable^{length of} service, let the petitioners^submit a detailed representation to the respondents seeking

¶39

A( i,l & RRN,l "<sup>p t\n)72 20it,

¶40

¶41

regularisation ol tl-reir service and uporl sucll representation bcir-rg receivcd, the rcspondents would consider the same and pass appropriate ordcrs in accordancc with law.

¶42

This Court having considercd thc rival submissions made by the parties is of the vier.r"- tlrat the present r,r,rit petition can be disposed of directing the petitioners to submit a lre sh representation to the respondents within turo (21 r.r,eeks sceking regularisation of their service in terms of thr: larv laid down by the Hontrle Supreme Court (refern:d supra) and upon such representation being received, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a reasonable period of time, preferably, within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of colry of this order.

¶43

With these observations, thc Writ Petition is disposed of. It is needless to say that the orders p.rssed

¶44

AKS, J & RRN,] \tp 29972 2016

¶45

¶46

by the Tribunal^{inO.A.No.2761 of2016, dated}

¶47

I8.O7.2016 are liable^{to be set aside and accordingly,}

¶48

they are set aside.^{No order as to costs'}

¶49

As a sequei,^{miscellaneousapplications pending}

¶50

if any, shall stand^closed.

¶51

sD/- N.CHANDRA^SEKHARSAO ASSISTANT REGITRAR

,TRUE COPYII

SECTION d,,,",*

1 The Princioal Secretary,^{Health MedicalandfamilyWelfare Department} ' r"6noani Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana'

¶56

il;'DY;;i";^{oi prnrii Heittna Familvwelfare' state of relansana'}

¶57

Hvderabad.

¶58

it;"Di.fi;i^{l/edical & Health officer Khammam'Districtat Khammam}

¶59

I. ft,u Ftin",pal^{Secretary, FinJnceDepartment'Telangana Secretariat}

¶60

Hvderabad,^{Stateof Telanqana'} .

¶61

s. iji,".,'ctIJ's^{Ci- iiowrun d pAVA N K u MA R, Ad.vocate .[oP u c]-} ;. i;; 66;i"-ci^{ibR SEnViCes-rr, Hish courtfor the stateof Telansana, at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶62

Two CD^CoPies

PSK

HIGH COURT

DATED:1711012023

ORDER

WP.No.29972 of 2016

/ive s i'lt'a
1.
c
z
cf, t{ r,r U ii?'r a
O l,|l,r i5
*
:.. .}
, ;-:'F., -, rtil:-'
------ :-_

¶69

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶70

v)
\b

Smt.M.Suseela, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.M.Suseela, v. The State of Telangana

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

Sri Ravi Chander Pelluri, Vs Sri Mamidi Sandeep Kumar

G.S.Reddy Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and 2 others

The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Vs G.S.Reddy

The Union of India Vs Ch. S.R.K. Sarma.

B. Ratna Vs Sangumuri Balakrishna

Union of India Vs S.Bhanu Priya