Dismissed

T. Padma v. The Tahsildar and 3 Others

Telangana HC24 Mar 2025WP/27401/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a temporary sweeper seeking regularization of service and payment of arrears under G.O.Ms.No.212, 1994. The High Court examined eligibility criteria including service duration as of specific dates. The petitioner failed to meet the requirement. Petition dismissed. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

T. Padma Vs The Tahsildar and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

IVIONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY^{OF IMARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPd^RAJESHWARRAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 27401 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

T. Padma. Wo: T. Yadagiri, Hindu,^{Aged about 50 years,Occ.. Sweeper,} R/o H. No.1-9-244lA/'1 , Nai'endra^{Nagar,-Julaiwada, Hanamkonda Mandal and} District, State of Telangana.

)

...PETITIONER

AND

1 The Tahsildar, Hanamkonda Mandal^{and District,Telangana State}

¶13

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer,^{Hanumakonda Division' Hanumakonda} Mandal and District, Telangana State.

¶14

3 The District Collector, Hanumakonda,^{Hanumakonda District, Telangana} State.

¶15

4 The State of Telangana, Rep. by^{its Principgl Secretary, Revenue} Department, Secrelariat,^{Hyderabad - 500 004.}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High court maybe} pleased to regularize the service of the^{petitioneras SWEEPERin viewas per} Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment^{i.e, in Uma Devi on par with other sweepersby} paying arrears of salary on such regularization of^{service by setting asidethe} impugned order bearing Procdgs.No.^{A21689312009Dated. '18i06l2021' on} Respondent. No.3, as^petitioner is^{entitlefor regularizationof her service, by} issuing writ of Mandamus or any^{other order or directionas this Hon'ble court} deems fit and proper in the circumstances^{of the case.}

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition unde- Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the cir,:umstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{writpetition, the High Ccurtmay be pleasedto} direct the respondet)ts to consider^{the representationsof the petitioner to continue} as swEEPER on nrinimum^{wagestill final disposalof the rnain writ Petition by} suspending impugned order bearing^{No. A216893/2009 Dated. 1810612021.}

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^{R. ANURAG}

¶21

Counsel for the Re:;pondents: GP FOR^SERVICES-ll

¶22

The Court made th(l following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶25

WRIT PETITIO^{N No.274O1 of2O22}

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

The present u'rit^{petition is hled aggrieved by the} proceedings No.A2l6a93l20O9,^{dated 1B'06'20O1, issued} by the 3.a Respondent.

¶28

Heard Sri R.Anurag,^{learned counsel forthe} petitioner and the iearned^{Government Pleaderfor} Services-ll, appearing^{for the respondents'}

¶29

Brief facts of the^{caseare as follows:-}

¶30

The petitioner was^{appointed as a Sweeperin May} 1993 on temporary basis.^{While so, the petitionerhled} O.A.No.2878 of 200O^{seeking regularizationinterms of} G.O.Ms.No.212, dated^{22.O4.1994,'*'hich was allowed on} 23.O2.2OO1. Aggrieved^{thereby, the Statehas filed a writ} petition and obtained an^{interim order, and thereby' the} sa1ary was not^{paid to the petitioner' As such' the} petitioner has again filed^{O.A.No'4669of 2OO3'The same}

¶31

..*<{f;lH

¶32

¶33

,r'as dispo:iccl of on 11.06.2009, directing the Department to verifl t I re attendance register and, if amounts are due, make arra rgements to release payment \ .ithin one month. As the rcslondents took no action, the petit.oner has once again lilcrl^(l.A.No.42B of 2Ol1 arld the Tribunal on 27.Oa.2olll clirected the respondents to pa./ salaries due from Marclr 1993 to November 2009 aiong with the balance amount, if anv, bv deducting the amount alr.ead1, paid to the petitio'rcr'. Thereafter, the petitioner al)llroached the Honble [-, rkalLrkta, i,.nd \ rith the interv<:ntion of the Honblc I.okalr-rktzr, thc respondents issued ,a cheque for the amorrn ol Rs.49,066/ However, it was observed that if the pet lioncr has any grievance, she must file an appropriat( appiication before the Tribunal. Subsequently, the pctiti('ncr filed W.P.No.4O239 of 21tl6 seeking regularizzrtion of services and payment of arr:ars and after admission of the said rvrit petition, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.Nc .49587 of 2016 seeking a direr:tion to the respondent s to consider the represr:ntation for

¶34

)

¶35

regula,rization^{arrd payment of arrea-rsand salaries 'This} Court disposed^{of the said writ petition on 07 'O3'2O21'} directing^{the respondents to consider the representationof} the petitioner^{and passappropriate orders in accordance} with law^{within a period of four weeks from the date of} receipt of^{a copy of the said order'After disposal of the} said writ^{petition, the respondents passed the impugned} orderdatedls.06.2o2L,rejectingpetitioner,scasefor the petitioner^{has filed} regalaization.^{Aggrieved thereby'} the present^writ Petition'

¶36

4 . Learned^{GovernmentPleader appearing forthe} respondents^{filed acounter a-ffidavitstating that the} petitioner^{was temporarilyappointedas a Sweeperby the} Revenue^{DivisionalOfficer'Warangal'vide Proceedings} No.C/3876/1993,^{in themonth of May1993' The} petitioner^{approached the Tribunalfor payment of wages} and^{regulari zation ofher services' The Tribunal' vide order} d.ated3O.02.2O1O,rnO'A'No'1026/20l0issueddirections tothe3.drespondentttrerein,theDistrictCollector,topass

t.-s

orders or the letter dated 22.l2.2oo9 of the l"t Responder 1, i.e.. the Tahsildar in terms of C.O.Ms.No.212, dated: 22.o4. 1994. Accordingly, in pursuance of the orders of the Trit urnal, the case of the petitioner^rvas examined, and in terrns of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.O4.199,1, she has to complete (5) years o[ service on or before 2 5 . 1 1 . 1993, to get eligibilitl, for relStlarization of service in the Department. In this instiurt case, the petltloncr \:at s appointed on 07.05.1993 rand did not complete (5 j \ ca rs of service as rerlr-ri1s6l under G.O.Ms.Nc 2l2, dated 22.O4.1994. The 3'a Respondent has rejected ti- c Petitioner's case for regulariza,ion of service vide Proct t:dings No.A2/6893/2O09, date<l 07.08.2010. The petitic ner rr,as disengaged from service trv September 2000, br-r as per the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.42til201 1 , dated 27 .O8.2013, the wages and arrears rve re paid to the petitioner up to September 2OO9 as per th e attendance certificate issued by the then Tahsildar, Hanumakonda ( 1"t respondent).

¶42

¶43

¶44

It is further^{stated that the petitionerhas hled} W.P.No.4o23^{9 of 2016, and this Court disposed of the said} writ petition,^{directingthe respondents to consider the} representation^{submitted by thepetitioner and pass} appropriate^{orders in accordance with law'Pursuant to} the said^{order,the respondents haveexamined the matter} and rightly^{passed the impugnedorder' rejectingthe} Petitioner's^case'

¶45

Learned^{counsel appearing for the petitionersubmits} that the^{petitroner was initially appointed as Sweeper on} 31.05.1993,^{and the respondents oughtto have reguiarized} her servrces

¶46

ln support^{of hiscontentions'learned counsel} appearing^{for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the} SE;CRETARY,^{STATE OF} Hon'bie^{APex Courtln} KARNATAI2A^{AND OTHERSVs' \IMA DEWr with regardto} the regularization^{o[ employee's services'}

'^{(2006) 4 scc I}

B. Leanrecl counsel appearing for the petil.ioner further submits t[ at lhe employee shal1 be regularized^r.r,henever the emplo. e e completes ten years of his/hr, r service. The petitioner \,AS appointed in the year- 1993 and continuour,lv ri'orked and completed nihet<:en )-ears of service b1' 2O 12. The petitioner's SCTVlCCS ,)ught to have been reg llarized rvith effect from 20l.2, trut the respondenr s have erroneously passed the inrpugned order rejecting t[ e petitior-rer's claim. Hence. the ir-rpugned order is liable to be set irsicle

¶51

9 . Learr ed Gor.ernment Pleader apper: ring for the responcienr s submits that the resporrdents, after considerinll tl're malerial available on record, rightly passed the impugrLccl ordcr', and there are no grounds to interfere r'r'ith the same. Therefore, the writ petitiorr is devoid of merits and t.he samc is liable to be dismissed

¶52

Consictering the rival submissions ma<lt: by learned counsel for the respective parties, and perusing the record,

¶53

¶54

the Petitioner^{initiallyfiled O'A' for regularization of service} under G.O.Ms.No.212,^{d'ated' 22'O4'1994' Under the said} G.O., the^{government formulated ascheme forthe} regularization^{ol servrces of the persons appointedon daily} wage/NMR^{or on consolidated pay, whichwill continue on} the date of^{commencement of the Act'The Government} accordingly^{decidedthat the services of suchpersonswho} workedcontinuouslyforaminimumperiodoffiveyears

¶55

andarecontinuingason25-11.1993beregu1arizedbythe appointing^{authorities subject to fulfillmentof the foilowing} conditions^{: -}

¶56

The^{person appointed should possess the} qualiJications^{prescibeclos per tules in force as on} lis/ her^{seruiceshaue to be} the date fron^uhich regulaised.

¶57

1. TtEg^{should be tuithirt the age limits as on the} appointment^{dateas NMR/DoilAtuage emplogees'}

¶58

The rule^{of reseruation, uhereuer applicable'uill be} follouLed,^{and backlog utill be set off against future} uacarlcles.

I I I i

i I I I I

4). Sp'trrsoing of candidates front the Enplogment Exchar'ge is relaxed.

¶65

Ab: onttiott shall be against clear uaconcies of post.s ,'onsiderecl necessary to be continue'C as per utork-l< ctd excluding the uacancies alreadg r ctified to the Ar dhra Pradesh t-\tblic Seruice Comnrisston / Dlstict,Selectiort Oommitte e.

¶66

In tl e case oJ' Workcharged Establishmer,.t, tlhere there u,ill be no clear uacancies, because o_i the fact that th. expenditure on Workcharged ls ai a ftted percenl,tge of P.S. charqes and as soon. (7s th,z tuork is ouer. tL e serpice-s of uork charged estabLishrnent ruill haue tc be tenrtinatecl, theg shatt be adjust<td in t lrc other d)petlments. Districl Offices prouided iL;ere ore clear uc,c.ancies of last Grade Seruice."

¶67

1 1 . In tht irrstant case. the petitioner has fjiecl O.A. lor reguiarizati rn of her sen,ices in terms of G.().Ms.No.212, dated 22.O,.1994. As per the preliminary con,Citron rn rhe said G.O., the petitioner has to complete five years of senice as on 25. i 1.1993. whereas the p:titioner \ ras

¶68

appointed ir the month of May, 1993. A perusal of the record discltses thal. the petitioner could not complete five

¶69

¶70

years of^{service as on 25'Il 'lgg3 and therefore'the} petitioner^{is not entitledfor regularizatiort of her services'} Further,^{pursuant to the awardof the t'oka1'uktha'the} respondents^{have issued a cheque for arr amountof} Rs.49,066/-^{to the Petitioner'}

¶71

t2. The Apex^{Court in UMA DEVts case (1 supra)'held} as follows

¶72

One^{aspect needs to be ctaifted'Theremag be} cases^{ttthereiregular appointments (not illegal} appointments)^{as explained in S'V'NaraAanappa} [(1967)^{]SCR 128: AIR 1967 SC 10711' R'N'} Nanjundappa [(1972)^{1 SCC 409: (1972) 2SCR} 7991 and^{B.N Nagarajan [(1979)4 SCC 507:198O} ACC^{(L&S) 4: (1979) 3 SCR g37l and refened to in} para 15^{abotte, of cluly qualified personsin dulg} sonctioned^{urrcant postsmight houebeenmade} and the^{emplogees haue continued to utorkten} Aeors^{or more but tuithout' the interuentionof orders} of the^{courts or oftibunals Tle qtestion of} reguloisation^{of the seruicesof such emplogees} may^{houe to be consideredon meits in the light of} the pincipals^{settled by tltis court in tle cases} aboue^{rekned. to and in the tight of this judgment'} In that^{context' the Llnion of India' the State}

¶73

¶74

¶75

Cou,,rrtments and their instrumentalities should tctke steps to regulaise as o one-time mectsure, the .serr, ces of stu:h ircegularly appointed, ttho haue tuori^'ed for ten Aears or more in dulg sottctiotrcd post; but not under couer of orders of the c.ourls or of tr lrur'tals artd should further en-sure thrtt regular recn itnterrts are undertaken to fitt tiose uacqnt saru liorrcd posts that require to be filtea up, irt case; urhere temporary emplogees or dail 1 uagers ere t)cblq nou., emploged. The process mtrst be sel in m ttiort ttith.irt six month.s from this date We also clcti,'i1 that regu.IarizatiotT, if ang alreadg nutde, Itut tlol sub judice, need not be reopened based on tLd.s judgirreri, but th.ere should be no further b.,1,cassint1 of tlt,, cotlstitrt tional requirement and recltdaizinq or rrt,tk.ing pennanent. those not dulg app<tintecl as per I tte constitttlional scheme."

¶76

l.l. As per the aforesaid judgment. the petitioner has to com plete t€ n ,,earq o I service . Since the petitioner has not completcri l.'n -'ears of sen,ice, the petitioner .s not entitled to regulariz rrion of her services. Therefore, tLis Court is of the opinion that the respondents have right t passed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner.,s case for regLllarisati( )n of his services ald there are r o grounds to

¶77

¶78

1S interfere with the same. Therefore, the writ petition devoid of merits ald the same is liable to^{be dismissed.}

¶79