Allowed

R.Ramuloo, v. The District Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad

Telangana HC20 Feb 2025WP/43781/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Four long-serving contract Typists/Computer Operators of Panchayat offices in Nizamabad petitioned for regularisation under GOMs.No.16 dated 26.02.2016 after two were stopped from working. Court found they were duly qualified, continuously utilised since 1998-2005, and were in service as on 02.06.2014, and directed their regularisation within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to regularise services of all four petitioners per GOMs.No.16 dated 26.02.2016 and pass appropriate orders within four weeks; no costs.

R.Ramuloo, Vs The District Panchayat Officer… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

':,

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:43781 OF 2016

¶8

Between:

¶9

¶10

R.Ramuloo, S/o. Kondaiah, . aged qbout 45 years, Typist (Computer Operator), 0/o. Divisional Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad, Nizahabail Disirict.

¶11

G-Subba Rao, S/o. Veeraiah, aged about 32 years, Computer Operator, 0/o. Divisional Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad, Nizamabad Distiict.

¶12

P.Swapna Rani; D/o. Manohar Rao Josh, Aged 37 years, Computer Operator, 0/o. Divisional Panchayat Officer, Bodhan, Nizamabad District.

¶13

S.Praveen Kumar, S/o. Satyanarayana, Aged 32 years, Typist,0/o. Divisional Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad.

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

AND

¶16

The Diskict Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District.

¶17

The District Collector (PW), Nizamabad, Nizamabad Distric(. 3. The Commissioner for Panchayat Raj and Rural, Employment, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶18

The State of . Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretaria[, Hyderabad.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services in the posts of Typists / Computer Operators or any other equivalent categories in terms of orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 16, Finance, dated 26-22016 with all consequential benefits by holding the action of the respondents in seeking to dispense with the services of the petitioner / not permitting to discharge their duties after rendering more than 1 112 decades service on contract basis that too even without passing any orders so as to avoid regularization of the services of the petitioners in terms of the orders of the Government in G.O.lMs.No. 16, Fin., daled 26-2-2016 is as illegal, arbitrary,

¶21

discriminatory,^{unjust, c'ruel and inhuman and violative of Articles1,1' 16 and 21 of} the Constitution^{besideSbeing opposedto all principlesof natural justice, equity} and fair^plaY

¶22

l.A. NO:^{1oF 2016(WPMP. NO:s4039 0F2016)}

¶23

Petition under^{liection'1 51 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} directtheresponden-.stoContinuethepetitionersinserviceintheirrespective posts

¶24

CounselforthePetitioner:SRI.BRAHAMADANDIRAMESHSENIoRCoUNSEL REP Ms. R. SWARNALATHA

¶25

Gounsel for^{the Respondents:GPFOR SERVICES ll}

¶26

The Court made^{ther following: ORDER}

wP 43781_2076 NBK, J

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.437El of 2OL 6

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.l passed Graduation and also I)zpewriting English ald Telugu Higher Grade and also Diploma in Computer Applications, and he was originally appointed as Section Writer with effect from 14 .04.1993 on a remnneration of Rs. l2l- per day vide Memo dated 74.04.1993. He was initially appointed as Contract Labour from O1.12.1997 and deputed to work in the District Panchayat Offrce, Nizamabad, vide Memo dated 29.01 .1998 and was orally directed to work as Telugu Typist, and !e worked as such till 31.12.2015.^petitioner No.2 passed B.Sc, and also Typewriting English and Telugu Higher Grade and also DCA (Computer Certificate course) and appointed as Typist on contract basis under the control of respondents from O1.O1.20O1 and working as such till date. Petitioner No.3 passed B.Com and Typewriting Lower Grade and DCA (Computers) and was appointed as Computer Operator with effect from 01.01.2O05 on contract basis and working as such. Petitioner No.4 passed Intermediate and PGDCA and appointed as Computer Operator on contract basis with effect from 01 .O 1.2004 and continuing as such. It is their case that they completed more thal ten years of service on contract basis, and there are several existing vacancies of Typists / Computer Operators available under the control of respondents, and the respondents extracted work from the petitioners and the petitioners received salaries directly from the Depar*nent.^Petitioners salary on contract basis at Rs.2,O0O/- per \ month was^enhanced from time to time and now they are being

{ l:,

wp^437E1_2016 NBK,I

paid at Rs.12,0Ot)/-^{per month' Petitioners contend ttrat they are} entitled. to^{regularizationof services,ald the Goverrlmentvide} GOMs.No.22^{dated 13.08.2014 decided to constitute a Committee} of Officers^{to,:xamine the issue relating to regularization of} services, and^{theGovernmentissuedGOMs'No16'dated} 26.02.2016,^{rnentioning clearly thatregularizatiort may be} considered onlr,^{inrespectof eligible persons.,r,orkingaS on} 02.06.2014.^{It. is alleged that petitioner Nos'l and 3 were not} allowed to^{continue in service while petitioner Nos'2 and 4 are still} working. Petilioners^{contendthatthey are eligitrie asper} GOMs.No.16^{dated,26.02.2O16,and theyare rendering services for} over a decad.e^{rmd a half, and now they are age-barredand the} action of respc,r^{clent authorities in not allowing petition<:rs 1 and 3} to continue in^{service and dischargetheir duties,isillegal'} Petitioners^{re1'y on the judgmentof the Hon'lcle Supreme Court in} State of Karnataka^{v.M.L. Kesaril, and a-1so on State of} Karnataka^{v.Umadevi2,and contend that they are entitled to} regularization.^{They furthercontend that the respondents are} paying only Rs.^I2,OOO l-^{per monthwhereas they art: entitledto} Rs. 15,000/^{- per month in termsof the order issued by Government} in GOMs.No.14,^{Finalce Department,dated 19'02'2016'}

¶38

2.Heardl\ilr.BrahmadandiRamesh,learnedSeniorCounsel appearing on^{llehalf of Ms. R. Swarnalatha,learned counselon} record for the^{oetitioners,and learned Government Pleader for} Services-Il^{Perusedthe record'}

¶39

12010 (9) scc 247 , 2006 (4) scc 1

wp 43781 2016 NB(,I

()

Learned counsel for the petitioners, while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, would mainly contend that the petitioners a-re duly qualihed and have been working in respective posts on contract basis for over a decade and they are eligible for regularization as per Umadevi (supra), and further they are eligible as per GOMs.No.16 dated 26.Q2.2016, and the respondents in spite of available vacancies a-re not regularizing the services of the petitioners.

¶45

karned Government Pleader, on the basis of counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1, would submit that as per GO(P) No.112, Finance and Planning (FW.PC-III) Dept., dated 23.O7.1997, the Government has taken a decision that services of persons who worked continuously as part time workers for a minimum of ten years and continuing as on 25. 1 1. 1993 would be regularized by the appointing authorities subject to the condition that absorption shall be against clear vacancies, and the persons should possess necessary qualifications, and the persons should be within age lirnit as on the date of appointment as part time ernployee. And, as per GOMs.No.2l2, dated 22.04.1994, regularization of services of individuals who worked continuously for a minimum period of Iive years and continuing as on 25. 11.1993 would be regularized. It is submitted that petitioner No.1 was appointed on 14.04.1993, and his case was examined with reference to GOMs.No.212, and GO(P) No.112, and observed that he is not eligible for regularisation as he did not have minimum working period of 5 years and 10^years respectively as on 25.11.1993. Further, petitioner Nos.2, 3, and⁴ were engaged purely on adhoc basis orally to run ofhce administration and they are not eligible for regularization. It is statq! that the petitioners are falsely stating that they were \

¶46

¶47

wp_43781_2016 NBK,J i'

¶48

appointed on oontract^{basis, and they have not 6;iven any} appointment^{ot.ders by the Governmentor DistrictPanchilyatoffice} and they do^,n ct^{have acquittalces'It issubmittedthat the} petitionerswer.eappointedorallyandnotoncontractbasisand thereforeGoMs.No.22dated13'08.2o14isnotapplicable.Itis statedthataspt:rGOMs.No.16dated26'O2'20'tr6,theGovernment may regularize the^{services of personsappointed on contractbasis} against sanctioned^{posts subjectto fulfilmentof para (b) thereof'} and regularizaliion^{would be consideredonly in respect of persons} appointed on^{f-utl time contractbasis on monthlv remuneration.It} is stated that^{no such alleged proposals of petitionerszrre pending} before the Gov,:t'nment.

¶49

¶50

ItissubrnittedthatduringreorganizationofDistrict,allthe regular staff^{vrorking in the offices of District Panch,ayatoffice,} Bodhan and Nizamabad,^{weredeputed to DistrictPanch ayat Office,} Nizamabad and both^{the DivisionalPalchayatofficer:swere not} functional. Pet.iljoner^{Nos.1 and 3 working on ora,l instructionsin} the offices of Divisional^{Panchayat Ofhces, Nizamabadan d Bodhan,} and they have relinquished^{duties due to personal issttesand it is} false to state thzrt^{they were not permitted to discharget.heirduties.} It is further^s rbmitted^{that in January, 2O2O, the Divisional} palchayat Off.ices became functional and the services rlf petitioner No.1 is being^{rrtilized orally as computer operator with effect from} 26.09.2O2O after^{lapse of hve years and since then he is working'} Petitioner No.l3 has been^{appointedas Mandal Level Data Entry} Operator on outsourcing basis^{under Rashtriya GrzmSwar4i} Abhiyan Scherne in January 2O2O^{and since then she is working in} Varni Maldal c,f Nizamabad District under^{the controlof Mandal}

¶51

¶52

wp_43781 2Ot6 NBIC J

¶53

Panchayat officer, Varni. It is submitted that petitioners zrre not eligible for consideration under Umadevi (supraf.

¶54

It is submitted that Government has not issued any notification for recruitment of eligible persons for the posts of tlpists/computer operators in the office of 1.t respondent in terms of GOMs.No.22 dated. 13.08.2014. petitioner Nos. 1, 2, ald 4 are working as computer operators in the oflices of Divisionar Panchayat Offrce, Nizamabad and District panchayat Office, Nizamabad, and petitioner No.3 is working as Mandal Level Data Entry Operator at Mandal parishad Development Office, Vami, under the control of Mandal panchayat Officer, and getting monthly remuneration from Grarnpanchayats without any appointment orders. It is submitted that as per GOMs.No.16, dated,26.02.2016, the Government may regularize the services of persons appointed on contract basis against sanctioned posts in the Government, subject to availability of post in relevant category in respective department, and regularization may be considered only in respect of persons appointed on full-time contract basis on monthly remuneration, ald regularization may be considered only in respect of eligible persons working as on O2.06.2014 immediately before the formation of relanga,a State, and the petitioners have not been appointed by the Government in duly salctioned posts, and they do not have any right for regularization of services.

¶55

Having considered respective submissions, and perusing the record, it may be noted that the material papers frled in support of the contention of the petitioners would show that the Government vide memo dated 29.01 . 1998 as contract labour in Gram Panchayat Yellareddy. Further, the Serrrice Certificates dqfSd

I \

wp,43781-2016 NBK, J

No.2 would^{show that he '*'orked as} |4.O2.2OOT^{of F)etitloner} ,^and Petitioner^{N'l.4 worked} Computer^{Operatorfrom 2001 to 2OO7} as^{Computer Opt:rator from2OO4 to20} 07. Further,^{the Proceedings} ad, dated^{23.11.2C)13 would} of District^{PanchayatOfficer'Nizamab} d and entrusted^{1.he work of} show^{that the petitionerswere depute} computerizatio:n^{/ verificationwork inthe District Panchayat} Officer,^{Nizamabad, frorn 24'11'2013' Likewise' the proceedings} dated15.o8.20].5oftheDistrictPanchayatofficer,Nizamabad, also^{show that the petitionerswere allotted to work in the Grama} Jyothi Program^{in thegrampanchayats'Similarordersdated} t Officer,^{NizamabacL, detailing} 31.10-2015^{of the DistrictPanchaya} the^{petitionerson turn duties'}

']t

arr

petitioners^{have b€:en dePuted} 6. it canrrot^{be disPutedthat the} uter OPerator/TYPi.st^{etc', and} to work^{in gra.rr: palchayat as Comp} their^{engagement in service dates back to 1998' 2OO1 ' 2OO4etc'} Further,^{consistently since 2013' they can be seen to have been} used in^{variottsr serviceslike Grama Jyothi prograrnme ' and turn} duties^{as sho'wn in the a'forestated Orders issued by the District} Panchayat^{OIfice' Further, the GOMs'No'16 datedt26'O2'2O16} clearly^{stipulates that the services of persons appointed'ln contract} basis against^{sanctionedposts in the Government wouldbe} regolaized,^{stLtrject to certain conditions}

¶66

services for^{nrore thana} 7. Petitionr:rl^{have been rendering} decade^{by the' dateof issuance of GOMs'No'16' dated il'6'O2'2016'} Even^{assumingthat they were off-workdue to non-fi'Lnctioningof} District^{Panchayat Offrce for a while, it cannot be disputed that} their^{services havebeen utilized as necessa-ry consistently for a} period spanning^{over a decade. It is not the case of the respondents}

wp_43747 2076 NBK,.I

that the petitioners have refused ald not reported for work even though they were offered work. More particularly, the proceedings of District Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad, dated 23.11.2013 would show that the petitioners were deputed to work on computerization/verification work in the District panchayat Officer, Nizamabad. Furthermore, the petitioners are duly qualilied to work in their respective roies even as on the date of their contractual service, and they have been working in the hopes of regularization attending to the office requirements of the respondents. Even as per proceedings dated 23.1I.2013, it cannot be disputed that they were in service and continuing as on 02.06.2014, and therefore the case of the petitioners for regttlarization as per GOMs.No. 16 dated 26.02.2O16 cannot be denied.

¶71

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners as per GOMs.No.16, dated 26.02.2016 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stald closed.

¶72

SD/- T. TIRUMALA^DEVI AS T NT REGISTRAR // //TRUE COPY// s CTION OFFICER

¶73

':.

¶74

To, 1. The District^{Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad' Nizamabad District'} 2. +ii; 6i;i;i;i^{boii.Ciditpwl,Ni2amabad,Nizamabad District'} 3. The commissioner^{fo, H;;:-h;v;i nii} 'na^{Hural'Emplovment'state of} Telangana,^HYderabad.

¶75

Telangana,^HYderabad.

¶76

1. The Principal^{Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department'} Secretariat,^{T.S.,HYderabad}

¶77

Secretariat,^{T.S.,HYderabad}

¶78

1. fi; "Cc 6' rvr.. R. SWAnruALArHA, Advogale [oPUCl 6. i;; 66iio" op^{FoR sEFi\ib'id'ii, iish c.irt for the stateof relangana,} at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶79

Two CD^CoPies BM

¶80

GJP ?*-

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010212025

ORDER

I irTS QF
C)b
N$ ,s,
tt I
!_))
") -.rf
4 D E ?' t)/ ''- -,.'

¶86

WP.No.43781^{of 2016}

¶87

ALLOWING^{THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS} (AS l,' c)

R.Ramuloo, v. The District Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ramuloo, v. The District Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Spurthi Solutions Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Sama Lakshmamma Vs Sri Murali Manohar Swamy Temple

Koripalli Sreenu Vs The State of Telangana

Ch. Bhoomiah, Medak Dist Vs Secretary, Panchayatraj Dept., Hyd and 5 Others

D Chinna Shankar Vs Chairman and M.D., Singareni Collieries Com.Ltd.

Smt. Dr. D. Jyothsna Vs The State of Telangana