K. Ramakrishna Reddy, Vs The Unon of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

K. Ramakrishna Reddy, Vs The Unon of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed without costs; impugned rejection order dated 04.09.2013 set aside; 2nd respondent directed to pass regularization orders within two weeks regularising the petitioner from his initial appointment (01.09.1987), with consequential notional benefits from 01.09.1987 as applicable from time to time (no retrospective monetary benefits), and to fix his pay and disburse pension and retirement benefits within three months.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned rejection order dated 04.09.2013 refusing regularization of the petitioner's services, being a non-speaking order devoid of any reasoning, is illegal, arbitrary and unjust. +2 more

Court's answer

This Court holds that the impugned rejection order dated 04.09.2013 is an empty formality, bereft of reasoning and illegal, apparently passed for the sake of passing an order to avoid contempt proceedings.

Ratio / Principle

It is borne out by the record that the petitioner's juniors who were appointed in 1990, i.e., later than the petitioner, have been regularised during 1992; there is no plausible reason for not regularising the petitioner's services when his juniors were considered for regularization, except stating that the petitioner's case was considered and rejected; the respondents failed to rebut this specific, documented allegation.

Key takeaways

Keeping in view the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra) and Jaggo (supra), and also considering the merits of the case, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.ratio¶56
The writ petition is allowed and the impugned rejection order dated 04.09.2013 is set aside; the 2nd respondent is directed to pass orders of regularization of the petitioner within two weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, regularising him from his initial appointment i.e. 01.09.1987; the petitioner shall not claim retrospective monetary benefits on account of the order.ratio¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.6254 of 2019 (K. Ramakrishna Reddy v. Union of India and others), High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, Nagesh Bheemapaka J., decided 01.05.2025. The petitioner, appointed Casual Clerk in the respondent company (HMT) on 02.09.1987 at a daily wage of Rs. 24, rendered over three decades of uninterrupted service; his juniors appointed in 1990 were regularised during 1990-92, while his own case was rejected by proceedings dated 04.09.2013 issued after the dismissal of the respondents' appeal (W.A.No.927 of 2011, decided 19.07.2013) and during contempt proceedings (C.C.No.498 of 2014). Holding the rejection order to be an empty formality, bereft of reasoning and illegal, apparently passed to avoid contempt, and keeping in view State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 1034, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the rejection order, and directed the 2nd respondent to regularise the petitioner from his initial appointment (01.09.1987) within two weeks, granting consequential notional benefits from 01.09.1987 (expressly excluding retrospective monetary benefits), and to fix his pay and disburse pension and retirement benefits within three months. No costs.

[³³⁰⁰ ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY.THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH^BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION NO: 6254 OF 2019

Between

K. Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o. K. Subba^{Reddy, Aged about 56 years. R/o} Piot No.167, Venkateshwara Nagar Colony, Meerpet,^Hyderabad.

...PETITIONER

AND

1 The Unon of lndia rep. by^its Secretary,^{lr,4inistry of Heavy lnd-ustriesand} Public Enterprises, Ro6m No.407, Block^{No.14, LodhiRoad CGO Complex,} NEW DELHI 110 OO3

HMT, Machine Tools,^{(A Government of lndia Undertaking} )[eO^{by its} l\rlanager (HRIV), Praga Division 60-010,^C.l.E ,^{GandhiNagar, Balanagar} Hyderabad-500 037

3 lr,47s Praga Tools Ltds.,^{(A Government of lndra Undertaking} )^{rep. by its} lVanaging Director. Kavadigida, Hyderabad.

...P.ESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affrdavit^{filed therewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue an order, direction or wriI more^{particularly onein the natureof} writ of lvlandamus declaring the action^{of the respondentsin rejecting the case of} the petitioner for regularrzation^{by issuing the proceedingsdated04 09.2013 is} illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently^{set asrde the same and regularize} the services of the^{petitioner from the dateof his initialappointment}

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdav t filr:cl^rn su[,port of the petition, thr: High Court may be pleased to direct the responrlents to pay thc minrmum trmc: scale attached to the post of petitioner rn rvhich he is \vorkrng rn pursLrance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Purrlab VS^jagrth S ngh and⁽ ther reported in AlR 2016 SC Page 2176. pendrng d spcsal oF Vy'rit Petrtron

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. G- RAVI MOHAN

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI Y. JHANSI

(cENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&3: Ms. K. UDAYA SRI

The Court made the following: ORDER

1

,t'. wp 62s4 7Ot9 NBt(,l

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE NAGESH BIIEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.6254 ot 2Ol9

ORDER:

fhe petitioner. rvas appointed initially as a Casual Clprk in the resporrdent cornpany on 02.09. 1987 at a daily wage of Rs. 24. It is his case thar fi'om the start, hc was not paid a salary equal to that ol sirnilarly situated employees, which led hirn to llle w.p.No.7i36 of 1993 seeking regularizarion, and the writ pctition uas disposcd of in tenns of a similar case in w.p.No.g960 of 1987 dated I 5.09. 1987 based on a scttlement agreement between the management and thc union. This court, by order dated 02.06.1993. tbund the settlemcnt binding and directcd [he respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's case tbr regularization. Subsequently, vide letter dated I I . 12. I 996. the respondent informed the petitioner that his seryices would be regularized in the luture and placed hirr at Serial No.15 on the seniority list. The petitioner, howcver, contends that this [ist rvas unf'air, as individuals appointed as late as 1990 were show, as seniors. 1'his prornpted hirn to file a contempt case, which was closed on 10.09. 1997 with a direction for the respondent to consider the case olthe petitioner ri herr vacrrrrcies arose.

l.l Following a rcpresentation made by the petitioner on 02.10. 199g to fill a vacancy, the respondent, instead of regularizing his serwice, began to disengage him occasionally w'ithout written orders or reason, curminating in his final disengagemenr on 21.01.1998. The petitioner states that this action violated the orders of rhis Court in w.p.No.733 6 of 1993. He challenged this termination by filing W.P.No.7l l of 1999, which was ultimately allowed by this Court on 06.09.20 12.^-l'his Cour1, by referring to the judgment of Hon,ble Supreme Courl in State of Karnataka vs M.L. Kesarir and noting the

12010 (9) scc 247

.-E

2

wp 6254-2019 NBK, ]

petitioner's scrvicc of^{morcthan25 years, directed the respondents to consider} his case lor regularization^{u,ithin fbur rnonths.'lherespondent'sfiled an} appeal. i.e.. W.A.\o.c)2'l^{of l0I i. against the Orderpassedin W P'No 7I I of} 1g99; and the \rit appeal^{rrasciismissedby the tlou'blcDiVision Bcnch of this} Courl on 19.07.20^{13. \tr'hen the rcspotrdent lailcclto acl ou the regularisation} olthe petitiorrer, the^{petitioncr lllcda contcrrpt caqe,c.(1.No.498 of 2014tbr} contempt.^1-l-rc respondent.^{alicr reccir irlg the contetnptnotice,issued a letter} clated 18.12.20 13,^{intbnningttre pctitioneIthar his casc tbr legula|isationhad} been re.jected by an^{ordcr- dated0:1.09.10 li-fhc contcmpt case was} sLrbsequently closcd on^{16.11.1018. giving thc pc'titioner Libcrtyto challenge} the rejection order date(l^04.()9.2013.

1.2 The petitiorrer^{contends thal tlie reiection order dated04'09 2013'} r.ejecting his regularisation^{ferlllestrvas bercliof atry rcasons for such decision.} The petitioner ltrther^{allegcsa I iolation of the seniority principle, pointingout} that several^juniors tramelv^{V. L.[naMahcsl-rw-aReddy, Satyavathi, D'} Swamy., T. Anand.^{and Dcvaki Llai ri'l'ro joifled the r-espotrdentrnuchlater} than hirn, had their scn,iccs^{regularized cluring 1990-92.He also states that} other .iuniors who filed W.P.No.^{t 766 of 1999 had theirservices regularized} with elfect fiofir their initial appointments.^{Despitcthe petitioner,who is now} working as a Data Entry Opcrator^{witha current monthll'salaryof Rs. 9,000} and with service from^I 987^{to the present date $'ithoutany'break, beingone of} the "senior most employees",^{his case relnains unregularized.}

1.3 He therefore challenges^{the respondent'sactionin issuing the} impugned rejection orcler dated 04.09.2013^{as illegal, arbitrary,and contrary} to the Goven.rment lluidelines in Office^{Memorandumdated6.6 -2002} conceming the regularization of casual labout'and^{also contraryto thc law laid} down by the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in M.L. Kesari^(suprct).

3

N8K,I

Heard Ms. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the petitioner; and leamed counsel tbr rcspondent No.2-HM'f . I'eruscd the record.

Leamed counsel tor the pctitioner, making subtnissions in linc rvith the writ allldavit. essentiall\ contends tl-rat the pctitioner services have not been regularised in spite ol rcndeling continuous and unblernishcd ser-vice since his initial appointrnent on 01.09. 1987. and ir.r spite of the specific directions olthis Court in W.P.No.7336 ol I99-l ancl thc subscquent order iu W.P.No.7ll ol 1999 disposed olon 06.09.20 12. Ile contcnds that the irnpugned rejection order dated 04.09.20 l3 is a non-speaking order devoid of any reasoning. [t is also contended that the respondcnt has acted in gross violation of the petitioner's fundamental riglrts by illegatly lavoring^juniols, such as V. lJrna Maheshwar Reddy and others appointed in 1990. by regularizing their services^while wilfully leaving the petitioncr, a scnior-tnost employee, thereby depriving him of both status and the minirnum time scalc of pay attached to the post he has occupied for or er -i0 years.

No countcr alfida'".it has bcen filcd despite several adjoumments. However, leamed counscl lbr lespondent No.2 would essentially rebut the claim of the petitioner contending that the^petitioner's case lor regularization was legitirnately rejected, as fbrmally communicated in their proceedings dated 04.09.2013 - lt is also contended tliat lhere is no illegality in regularisation of juniors-namely V.Uma Maheshrvar Reddy, Satyavathi, D.Swamy, T.Anand, and Devaki Bai, who^joined the service in 1990-regularized during^1990-92.

Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that, admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a Casual clerk on 02.09.1987 in the rcspondcnt No.2-cornpany and rendered over three decades ofunintem:pted^{service in that post.} T'he respondents' only delense^is

4

wp-6254 2019

that the rr'iection olthe petitione r's re-uularization vide order dated 04.09.20 Il was valicl and that thc regular-ization ol'his-juniors ivas.iustilred. Ilorvever. the responclcnts hai,c lnilcd to rcbut tlre pctitioncr's sirr-cilic. docurrrentcd allesation tirlt indir iduals suclr rs '.Llrna Nlahcshuar Ileddr. Srttl,ar.athi. p.$r.r'arnl .'l'.Anand. ancl Dcrakr Ilar. tho ivcr.e agrpoinlcd in 1990 (i.e., later. than the pelitionel ), uerc rer:ularizetl durins 1990-92.

I I his Court. in \'.1).No.7 i I ol' 1999 datcd 06.09.10 12. spccilicalll,. dircctcd the rcspondcnts to corrsidcr rhc pctitioncr fbr rccularisation in tcrnrs ol'the.judgrncntin M.[-. Kesuri^(.suytt.tt). Tl'rc appeal W A.l.,-o.927 ol20l-i filcd bv the rcspondent authoritics aqainst rhr- ordcr in W.P.\o.7l l ol'1999 sas dismissecl br the I)ivision []cnch on I9.07.201i. whcn rhc- petirione-r lilccl a contcnrpt casc against rurn-cornpliance of tl're ordcrs in \'.P.No.7l I of t999, the respondents passcd the impugnccl rc. jcction oldcr dated 04.09.10 13.

In this connection, it is relcvanr to retl'r to thc judglnent ol' Hon'btc Suprernc^('ourt in Jaggo vs. Itnion of [ndi:rr. u hercin thc ape x Cour1. l-rv relimirrg 10 State of Karnataka vs. Unradevir, hcld as lbllorvs:

)6. llthile the.fudgntettt itt (lnutlt,vi (strltrut sotr?ht to ttrrtuil the ltnttlice^{oJ' batkdoorat rics} ttntl en-:ure a1t1xtittlments adlrcrecl to conslilutionul principle.s. is r.agrcttuble t)rtt its prin(rplc.s art oJtcn trtis interpreted or nti,sappliad to dert..,. legitittate claints r tl' lotrt-.si n'ing L:mplottecs- This judgmcnt uimetl to distinguislt letv)ean " illegul antl '' irt t'gttlur " oppointments. It ctrtt'toricallt. ttctd that cmltktt.ecs in irregulttr appoinlment.,^y'lut y,u.r, (ngege(l rrt dul1,. sunclionetl Jtttsts ttnd hod served continuoush, .fbr ntore thatt ten .tcurs. .shottld he considered for regularization as o one-tinrc measure. Howetter, tlrc laudable intent o1 the judgment is being subvcrted when institutions relt, on its dicta to indiscr im inate lv reject tha c lu ims of entployee:, et,en in coses where their oppoinlments ere not illegal, hut mcrelt. luck adhcren<:e to procedurul Jil.molitie ,s. (iovt,rnrncnt deporlntent.\ o.fien cite the jttdgmett in fhnadevi (ster(l) to tu gue thot no testt'cl rigltt to

,2024 tNSC 1034 r (2006) 4 SCC 1

5

wp 6254 2Ol9 N0t( l

( I

regularization exists Jbr temporarv emplq)ees, overlooking the judgment's explicit ocknowleclgmenl of cases u,here regulurizotion i.t appropriate. Tltt.s selcclive upplication disbrls llrc^judgnrcnl's spit-it and purposc. e.ffcctitely v'euponizing it ugainsl L'tnplo)"ees xln lttve rcndere(l indispetN(hle se.nriL'es over decudes.

In light o.f lha.\e considerotions, in our opiui|u. it is intperalive.for governnent dep(trtm(,nls lo lcud bt eratttple irt providittg.fair and stable emplot,tnt,nt Enaatiug v,orkers on lrnlporurt' basis .fttr extended pcriods. t'.tpet iall.r wl'ten their role s are inlcgral to tlrc organizot irnt'.s Jirnttitttting, ttot only^{(nlrdvan(.</sup> inlcrnatiorrul labour stundards but al.so L'rposes the orgonizulion ltt legal chrtllertges and undermines emTtlovec ntorult' Bt'ett.sttring.l'oir crnplrtttmenl practices, governntl inslitutions cutr ratluc't' llrc hLtt'tlL'n of' trnnecessa4' liligation, promote .job se curitr'. untl uplnkl rha pritrciplcs ef.iuslit'c and.fairne.r.s thut lher urc nrcu)tl lo cntholv Tltis ttltltt oaclt aligns^ttith inlernational sktntlords urul sets a positive pratrtlcttl for tlrc privdte seclor to [ollou. thcrebt' conlrihuling lo llte overoll bcfierment^o.[ labour praclices in tlrc counllr'}

ndmittedl). the pctitioncr u as appointe d in thc I car^I 987^as a^Casual Clerk. and admittcdly he had perlbnned the^(lutics lirr or er threo dccatles^withoutany adverse remark. Further. it is borne out b],'thc rccord that thc.iuniors of the^pctitioner who were appointed in 1990. i.e., later than^the appointnrcnt ot'thc^{petitionor,have} been regularised during 1992.^-l'herc is no^plausiblc reason^{fbr not regularisingthe} serviees ofthe pctitioner irhetr his.jtrniors lr,cre considcrcd lilr regularisation.^except stating that the petitioncr's case has^bcott cortsidcred^{and re'icclcd.}

7.1 Admittodl)'. the potitionor has not been^paid cven the rninirnum of^the time-scale of pay attachcd to his post. rvhile his .iuniors were rcgularised^andwere granted the pay pertaining lo thcir rcspcctivc 3:radcs. F urthennore. there is no valid reason for rejecting the case of the pctitioncr lirr regularisation. r'ide the impugned rejection order dated 04.09.20 13, ln that vics' of thc tnalter. this Court^{has no} hesitation to hold that the irnpugncd rejection order dated 04.09-2013 is^{an empty} formatity, bereft of reasoning, and illegal, and is apparently^passed for the^sakeof passing an order to avoid contelrpt proceedings. Kccping in vierv the^judgrnent of the Hon'ble Supreme^('ourt in L)nutdevi^tsupra),'and ,laggo t.\ttpra).^andalso considering the merits of thc casc, the rvrit petition deserves to bc allowed.

6

wp 625r 2ar9

Accordi.gll . thc * rit pctitio, is allo* cd. arrd thc impuened re.icction or-tlcr dated 0-1.092() 1-l is sct .rside. Thc ?' rcsponderr is dirccted to pass orders ol regtrlarisa t iolt ol'tltc pctitiotter riithin luo rreeks lionr the da[e o1'rcceipt 9l'a cppr of this ordcr. rcgularisinq hinr liom thc date ol'his iniriirl appointrncnt i.c.. 01.()9.1987 J hr l.rctitioLtcr shull rrot clailn rctr(isl)cctive rnorrctun bencfits rrrr accounl ol this ordcr. horr:vcr. this ('otrrt dccrns it appropriete [rr g13111 crrn\c(luentiJl tttttitttrltl bcttclits to tht pt'titioncr liorr-r 01.09.1987. irs applicablc lionr lirlc t6 tirne. kecpinr: rn ries thc athrittccl tacl that thc .juniors ol' thc pctilioler har,c hcen regularrscrl \ar back irr ttrc 1,'car 1992 and thc1, hrrvc cnjoled thc scn ice hencljts throuql111111 thr-ir scrvicc. and thc petitioncr \ as put 1o rrn(lrre <lisldvarrtaqc hv rlcnr i1!.1 resularisation alicr rrvailirrg his scrvices lbr or,er thrce clccadcs rnd dcspitc t5c 6rdcr: passcd lrr this ('ourr in w.l'.No.7l I ol' 1999 datccl ()6 ()9.20 ll. rrs stootj ulllrnretl hr thc I)ir ision Ilcnch ol rhis court in \L A-No⁽⁾¹⁷ ol' 2()l-l darcd I().()7.201-1. 'fhcri:lirre. tlte 2"'l rcspottdcnt shall include thc notional hcl.: llts us clirtclcd aSor e i1 lhe reetrlarisation <trtlcrs that hc u,ould pass in corrpliancc ol'this ortlcr.

ti.l ILrrthcrrrorc. this rvrit pctition is olthc'ear 2()t9. and thc pctiti.rrcr rvas 59 r'ears old bv thc datc of filing the s,rit pctition. \/e arc nou irr 201j. I)criti6lcr nrtrst lllrr c lrtteiIcd thc rL,cc o1- srLperannuation b] rro$. l he l,.r rcsporrdcnt slrall thcrc'lbrc calculrtte the tlotional hencflts as directcd above. and appropriulelr lix lris par. anrl acc,rtlin.'qlY disburse thc pcnsion and rctireurcnt hcnetits. as applicahlc. u ithrn ir pcriod ol'thrcc tnonths lionr the datc ol'r.ecciltt of a copr ol'this ortlcr. \o costs. Nlisccllancous petiLiorrs pcnding- il'anr'. shall stand closed.

SD/.B. REKHA^RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

<as

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

w

l.TheSecretary,Unionoflndia'N/inistryofHeavylndustrresandPublic E;i"rp^;;, ft.bom^{No a07,Biocr No.i+, Lodhi RoadcGo Complex'NEW} DELHI 110 003

Z if-l" ftfunog"r,^HVf ,^{MacnineTools, (A Government of India Undertaking )} , - rrlnrulr PrSoa 60-(r 10, C.l.E., Gandhi Nagar, Balanagar. Hyderabad-500 037 g bne CC to^"SRl G RAVI MOHAN Advocate tqEUC]

; 5;; 6c i" sni v^{JHANSI (cENTRAL GoVERNlviENrcouNSEL)[oPUC]}

5 One CC to trrls.^{K. UDAYA SRl,AdvocateLOPUCI}

Two CD Copies

l I \

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10512025

ORDER

WP.No.6254 of 2019

?
I HE SIA
o
(J
18 HAfl Mlf I
-)
* *
SPATCT

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

c)
o2 bI

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Proceedings dated 04.09.2013 issued by the respondents rejecting the petitioner's case for regularization of his services, communicated by letter dated 18.12.2013; challenged as illegal, arbitrary, non-speaking and devoid of reasons.¶36
Respondent No.2 - HMT Machine Tools (Praga Division) / respondent authorities (employer side) · 04.09.2013
Prior proceeding
Petitioner was appointed initially as a Casual Clerk in the respondent company on 02.09.1987 at a daily wage of Rs. 24.¶28
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed W.P.No.7136 of 1993 seeking regularization; it was disposed of in terms of a similar case, W.P.No.8960 of 1987 dated 15.09.1987, based on a settlement agreement between the management and the union; by order dated 02.06.1993 this Court found the settlement binding and directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's case for regularization.¶28
Prior proceeding
By letter dated 11.12.1996 the respondent informed the petitioner that his services would be regularized in future and placed him at Serial No.15 on the seniority list; the petitioner contended this list was unfair as persons appointed as late as 1990 were shown as seniors.¶28
Prior proceeding
A contempt case filed by the petitioner over the seniority list was closed on 10.09.1997 with a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's case as and when vacancies arose.¶28
Prior proceeding
Following the petitioner's representation dated 02.10.1998 to fill a vacancy, the respondent instead began occasionally disengaging him without written orders or reason, culminating in his final disengagement on 21.01.1998, alleged to violate the orders in W.P.No.7336 of 1993.¶29
Prior proceeding
Petitioner challenged the termination in W.P.No.711 of 1999, which was allowed by this Court on 06.09.2012; referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari and noting the petitioner's service of more than 25 years, the respondents were directed to consider his case for regularization within four months.¶29
Prior proceeding
Respondents filed appeal W.A.No.927 of 2011 against the order in W.P.No.711 of 1999; the writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 19.07.2013.¶46
Prior proceeding
When the respondent failed to act on regularization, the petitioner filed contempt case C.C.No.498 of 2014 for non-compliance with the orders in W.P.No.711 of 1999.¶34
Prior proceeding
After receiving the contempt notice, the respondent issued a letter dated 18.12.2013 informing the petitioner that his case for regularization had been rejected by order dated 04.09.2013; the contempt case was subsequently closed on 16.11.2018, giving the petitioner liberty to challenge the rejection order dated 04.09.2013.¶34