Allowed

Smt. Lagisetti Sulochana v. The Superintending Engineer

Telangana HC19 Sept 2023WP(TR)/3155/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside an order rejecting a claim for regularization of the petitioner's late husband's service, finding the rejection discriminatory compared to similar cases. The Court directed respondents to reconsider the claim.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 23.02.2015 set aside; respondents directed to reconsider petitioner's claim for regularization on par with Sri Ch. Srinivas Rao within two months.

Smt. Lagisetti Sulochana Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

W.P.(TR).NO: 31s5 OF 2017

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

Smt. Lagisetti Sulochana, W/o Vidyasagar (Late), Age 48 years, Occ ; House wife, R/o Medipalli Village, Tirumalayapalem lvlandal, Khammam District.

¶9

.,,..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . The Superintending Engineer, NSLBC - OandtV Circle, Tekulapally, Khammam , Khammam District.- 507002.

¶12

The Chief Engineer, Nagarjuna Sagar Project, Vijayapuri North, Hill Colony, Nagarjuna Sagar, NalgondJ District.508202.

¶13

The Engineer - in - Chief lrrigation & CAD Department, Govt. of Telangana, Erramanjil, Hyderabad.-500082.

¶14

The State of Telangana, rep. its Principle Secretary, lrrigation and CAD Department, Telangana Secreteriat, Hyderabad.-500022-

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 declare the Order dated 23-02-2015 passed vide Letter No. AtsiA.5/O.A No.7310/2014115O7 as being illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and set aside the same and may be pleased to pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of^justice and pass such other order or orders in the circumstances ol the case and in the interest of^justice.

¶17

( Prayer is amended as per Court Order dated 1410912023 in l.A.No.01/2023)

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.BHARATH BABU

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents :.AGP FOR SERVIES - ll

¶20

The Court made the following ORDER

¶21

THE HON,T LE SRI JUSTICE J. SREE;NIV,-(i FAO

¶22

WRIT PETITION (TRl No.3155 of 201'7

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This Writ^retition is filecl seeking the follcvvinll r'elief;

¶25

" to aecktre the order ciated 23.O2-2r)15 prr..;.st,,i uide Letter No.AB/A.5/O.A.No.731O/2O1.1/15(7 tts being, illegcl, arbitrary and against the p,rincip'le's t I natural^just,ce and set aside the s(7me."

¶26

The petitiorler initially filed O.A.Nc,.731O <t' 2074 before the A.P. .T., Hyderabacl, questioning t rt' irrrrction III of the respor dents regularizing tlre :;e rvi'tes of husband of the petitioner notionally as an(l u,lren l-re completed serr ice of five years as per G.O IVts. \o. 143 Irrigation (Serv ce-V) Department, dated L6.O:i. l9ll4 and G.O.Ms.No.56 rrigation and C.A.D.(Proje::t W:ng-Jistt( 1)) Department, drLted 2a.O2.1989, on par w;th o'her NMR's who were r€trenched and reinstate,l along with petitioners husband and not providing family pen rion to the petitioner.

¶27

Pursuant to ttre interim order grant,:d b.. tht' APAT dated 29.12.21)14, the respondents issued speaking order on 23.O2.21)15, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. By virtue of th,) abolition of the A.P.A.T. the tn;ltter was

¶28

,i2ti

¶29

¶30

transferred to this Court ancl rer-rumbered as W.P(TR) No.3155 of 2017.

¶31

The petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of )O23 amcnding the prayer, questioning the rejection order passed by respondent No.1 dated 23.02.2015 rind the same was ailowed on 14.O9.2023.

¶32

Heard Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing, learned counsel for t l-re petitioner and learned Assistant Governrnent Plearler for Services-II appearing for respondent Nos. I to 4.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's husband was appointed as a Man Ma-door on daily wages basis in the A.P. State Construction Corporation Limited at N.S.L.C. O&M Circle, Tekulapally on 15.O2.1983 and the said Corporation ls an undertaking firm of Governrnent of A.P. ar-rd the same was closed on 30.06.19a3 and accordingly the managernent issued retrenchment notices to all the employees. The workmen approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stayed the retrenchment orders and given directions to

¶34

-1

¶35

¶36

provide altel native emplo,yment in ilnv C;overnment Department^()r any Gover-nment undertakir'g. f)ursuant to tl-rc orders passed b-y the Hon'ble Suprerr e Court ancl by this Cou^'t, the petitioner was tr;tnsle rrec to the lrrigzrtion departrnent. Later, the resporrden -s re instated the petitioner into service on O 1.O 1 . 19ti5 arrcl postecl at NSLC O&M Circle, Tekulapally. Thereaft:r', he was posted as Att:nder on NMR basis on 2r>.12.1')9D at ESI Hospital, Sar athnagar. Subsequently, he^.l.zrs relieved frorn trSI I Iospital and repatriate<l to I;-r'igat i on dcpartment on 31.03.1997. Thereafter, on t9.o1 .1997, he was posted to NSLC O&M Division. Kalluru, Khammarn district and petitioner's husbar-r<[ dit:d u,hile he was on luty at Nidhanapuram Major Canal in Madhira Man,lal, Khammam Distr.ict. Alter tleat.r of her husband, on 29.O4.1998, respondent No.3 r;ent a letter to Governrner t for deemed regularization ol r;ervices of petitioner's hrrsband. On 13. 1 1.1998, r-esp<,ndent No.1 addressed a letter to respondent No.2. [nspit,: of the same, the reslrondents are not regularize d th,: services of the petitioner

¶37

::4::

¶38

He further submits that the petitioner's husband is entitled for regulari zatt on of services notionallv as so on AS completion of five (05) years of servicc as per the G.O.Ms.No.l43 Irrigation (Ser.V) Departrrcnt, clated 16.03.1984. He further contended that the respondents extended the similar benefit in favor of tl-re similarlv situated employee namely, Sri B.Rarnulu and also provided compassionate appointrnent ancl grar-rted pension to his wife, namely, Smt.B.Kousalya.

¶39

¶40

B. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner submitted a represcntation clated 16.04.201.4 and the same was rejected by respondent No.3 without properly considering vide speaking order dated 23.O2.2OL5.

¶41

Learned Senior Counsel vehernently contended that the respondents regularized the services of Sri B.Ramulu, pursuant to the orders passed by A.P.A.T. in O.A.No. lB74 of 2OOO, dated 17.72.2OO3, u,hereas, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner's husband and the same is clear discrimir-ration and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of h-rdia.

¶42

::5::

¶43

1O- Per contrl,^{learned Assistant Governmt:ntPleader} for Sen,ices-ll^{submits thatrespondbnt No.Ia-fter} considering^{t rerepresentation submittec' bythe} petitioner, dattd^{16-O4.2O74and 18.02.12O15, pursuant} to the interi 'n^{ordergranted by,{.P.A.-'|. dated} 29.12.2014^{inO.A.No.731Oof 2014, rightly :;:'tssed the} speaking^{order dt: 20.03-20L5 by giving re;l-(rorsand} there is no^{illeg rlity or irregularity in the said cr<ler.}

¶44

Having^{corsideredthe rival submission:;mzLde by} the respective^{parties and after perusalof the rnaterial} available on^{r:cord, it isundisputed factLh:Lt the} petitioner's husband^{was initially engaged as NMli Man} Mazd.oor in^N /s.A.P.State^{ConstructionC,lrporation} Limited on^{15.O2.7983 and due to the closure of the said} Corporation^{the managementhas issued notit:es to the} petitioner's hurband^{along with otheremployees.} Pursuant to^{the orderspassed by the Hor-r'lcleSiupreme} Court the^{employees were transferredttlGovt-'rrment} undertakings^{arddepartments.Accordingly ir;sued the} reinstatement^{ol ders to the petitioner's husband along} with others on^{01.01.1985 and posted toNSLTC O&M} circle, Tekulapa^{ly.Thereafter,hewas posterl totrSI}

¶45

t^"-t

¶46

¶47

Hospital, Sanathnagal-, Hydcrabad on NMR basis on 26.12.1996. Subsequently, he was repatriated to Irrigation Department from ESI on 31.O3.1997 arrrl he was posted at NSLC O&M Circle, Kallur divisior-r, Khammam district vide proceedings dated 19.O4.1997

¶48

¶49

It is also revealed from tl-re record that, the Chief Engineer through letters dated 06.Oa.1994 and 16.09.1994 submitted proposals for regularization of the services ol the petitioner's husband along with six (06) others to the Governrnent and the Governmcnt issued G.O.Rt.No.3O4 I and CAD(Service-V) Department, dated 29.O2.1998 stating that petitioner is not eligible lor regularizations as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.O4.1994. After demise of petitioner's husband, the Chief Engineer, NSL project, Hill colony, addressed a letter dated 29.O4.1998 and submitted proposals of the petitioner's husband along with another NMR's, namely, Sri Ch.Srinivas to respondent No.4 requesting them to grant permission for regularization of their services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.56 Irrigation and C.A.D.(Project Wing-Estt( 1)) Departrnent, dated 24.02.1989 and also to enable payment of ex-gratia and other retirement

¶50

¶51

¶52

benefits to thr: clepenclents of deceased N.M.R. i.e late L.Vidy:rsagar clu1.1' cancclling the Gcvernment orders issued earlier ride G.().Rt.No.3O3 I &^(-lAD (Sietvices-V) Departmerrt,^,littecl 29.O2.1998 anci G.().Rt No.ilo4 I & CAD (Services V) Departrn<:nt, clated 29.Ct2.1998.

¶53

It I'urtl er reveals lrorn the re rc,rd that, Ch.Sriniv:rs Rao approached A.P.A.T. aLnc[ hled

¶54

O.A.No.1B74 c i 2OOO and thc same was, dis rc,sed of on 11.12.2OO3 a rrl directed the respond(--nts therein to regularize the st:rvice of'the applicant within a p,:riod of six (06) u'c-eks. Pursuant to the same, hrs s:rvrces rvas regularized an,1 issued ordr-.rs in terms ol G.(t.lMs.No.56, Irrigation and Cl.A.D.(Project Wing-Estt( t)) teca-tment, dated 28.O2. 1!r89. On l.he other hand, the r:spondents have not <:onsrdered tl-re claim of petitioner's husband without anv rei rson s.

¶55

At this juncture, the petitioner su:rnitted a representation ciated 16.O4.2O14 to the rt:spoedents requesting the m to regularize the sr:rvic,:s of the petitioner's h usband notionally, or1 l)e-r with Ch.Srinivas Rao, and pursuant to the intrrim order

¶56

¶57

passed by the A.P.A.T., dated 29.12.2O14, respondent No.1 passed speaking orcler dated 23.O2.2O15 rejecting the clairn of the petitioner stating that Ch.Srinivas Rao, who worked as NMR Man Mazdoor and his services uere regularized extending benefits as per G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 28.02. 1989 pursuant to the orders passed by the A.P.A.T. in O.A.No.lB74 of 2OOO, dated 11.12.2OO3. In such circumstances, the respondents ought not to have rejectcd the claim ol the petitioner's husband who is also worked as NMR Man Mazdoor and he is also cr-rtitled for the very same benefit ol the regularization of services on par rvith Sri Ch.Srinivas Rao, the impugned rejection order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 23.02.2015 ts clearly discriminative and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶58

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 23.O2.2O15 passed by respondent No.1 is set aside and the respondents are directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization of petitioner's husband services on par with Sri Ch. Srinivas Rao as per G.O.Ms.No.56 Irrigation and C.A.D.(Project Wing-Estt(1)) Departrnent, dated^'28.O2.19a9 and extend all the

benefits \vithi r a per-ior I of tu o (O2) monl hs flo m the date

¶63

of receipt of a copy of this ordcr.

¶64

Accordinqlv, the Wr-it Petition(TR) is; clis rosed of. No costs.

¶65

Pending nriscellancous applications, il any, shall

¶66

stand closed.

¶67

//TRUE COPY//

¶68

SD/. C. IIRAVEEN KUMAR ASSIS'ANT REGISTRAR ( lc,

¶69

SE.:]TI f N OFFICER

¶70

¶71

The Superintendirrg Engineer NSLBC^- OandlV Circl,:, Tek.llrrpally, Khammam . Kharrnram District.- 507002.

¶72

The Chief Engine:r, Nagarjuna Sagar Project, Vijayalruri N rrth, llill Colony, Nagarjuna Sagar, NalgondJ District.508202.

¶73

The Engineer - in - Chief lrrigation & CAD Department, Go\t rf 1-elangana, Erramanjil, Hyderr lbad.-500082.

¶74

The Principal Sec'etary, lrrigation and CAD Departmt:nt, Tr langerna Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.-500022.

¶75

Two CCs to GP F f R SERVICES-Il, High Court for th,-. Statr of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT

¶76

One CC to Sri P.E harath Babu, Advocate [OPUC]

¶77

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910912023

,4 1 1tE ST.{f6' oJ <br>/i.'<" a:
'/ +:
r $ $12$n
'J
',.:
.<br>.-rrwtl"

¶82

ORDER

¶83

WP(TR).No.3155 of 2017

¶84

DrsPosrNG oF THE W.P (TR)

¶85

WITHOUT COS TS.

¶86

N<br>d<br>

Smt. Lagisetti Sulochana v. The Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Lagisetti Sulochana v. The Superintending Engineer

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

L. Suryanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

P.Raja Lingam, Nalgonda District Vs Prl Secy, Housing Dept, Hyderabad and 4 Others

Kancharla Seetharam Reddy, Vs B. Sreedhar Babu

Md. Afzal Baba, Vs The Stte of Telangana

Ms. Bathula Mounika, Nalgonda Dist Vs Md, Tspdcl., Mint Compound, Hyd and 2 Others

K. Venugopal and Ano. Vs C and M.D., Ts Spdcl and 2 Ors.