Dismissed

G. Uppalaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Feb 2025WP/6552/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Gram Panchayat employee sought regularization as PWS Fitter/Waterman under G.O.Ms.No.212 for pension and other benefits. The court held he was a temporary appointee not on a sanctioned post, delayed the claim, and already benefited from enhanced wages under G.O.Ms.No.51.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed without costs, pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

G. Uppalaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t^3304l

¶2

tN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATE OF} - - -'^{TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶3

WEDNESDAY,^{THE NINETEENTHDAY OF FEBRUARY} ..__ -TWOTHOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

rui nonounnBlE^{sRl JUsrlcE NAMAvARAPURAJESHWARRAo}

¶6

WRIT PETITION^{NO: 6552oF 202?}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Occ. Waterman^Mothe

¶9

3*#3Lil'r'3l;ths,\r",i,,l3lil:"ifl^{i,?,,fi,,'.i','olL,,.[?""'}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND^';;:':E,",JI:$ra5"8;,7J"'J#ll:+5ss"T:8fl,iBif, 3,1H""' Hyderabad.

¶12

The.Commissioner,^{of PanchayathRaj And RuralDevelopment ' State of} Telangana^HYderabad'

¶13

The District^{Panchayat officer, Nizamabad District' Nizambad'}

¶14

The Divisional^{Panchayat Officer' Armoor' Nizamabad district'}

¶15

The Mandal^{Panchayath officer, Mandal Praja Parishad VailporMandal} Nizamabad^istict

¶16

The^{Executive officer,Grampanchyath Mothe, Vailpur Mandal'Nizambad} district

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition^{under Article 226 of the Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{statedin the affidavit filed therewith'the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue^{an orderor directionmoreparticularly onein the nature of Writ of} MANDAMUS^{to declare the action of respondents in not considering the claim of} the^{petitionerfor regularizationof his servicesas PWSFitterMaterman is illegal} arbitrary^{andunconstitutional consequentlydirect the respondentsto regularize} the services^{of the petltioner in terms of the G O'Ms'No'212daled2210411994by} following^{the law laid down by the HonorableApex Court in case of B srinivasulu} and others^{Vs. Nelluru Municipal Corporation representedby its Commissioner}

¶19

Nelluru District, A,ndhra Pradesh reported in 2015 scc online sc 17g7 for the purpose of pensi.r and other benefits and to consider his caser for promotion to the post of ' pws Fitter Materman arong with others with i:rr consequentiar benefits including rronetary benefits.

¶20

1A NO: 't OF 2023

¶21

Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumsrances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents to regularize the services lf tne petitic,ner forthwith in terms of the G'o r/:; No -212 dated 22to4r1gg4 for the purpose of pension and other benefits as pril/s Fitter /waterman arong with others with a, consequentiar benefits in the interr-.s;t of justice.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner : SRI V.BALAIAH

¶23

Counsel forthe Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES ll

¶24

The Court made ther tbllowing: ORDER

¶25

¶26

TIIE IION'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA"'ESHWAR RAO} o.655 2of²⁰²³ WRIT^PETITIONN

¶27

oRDER:

¶28

The petitioner^{flled the present writ petitionseeking} the following^{relief :-}

¶29

"..... to issue^{an order or directionmore particularlyonein the} nature of^{Writ of MANDAMUSto tleclare lhe dction of the} respondents^{in not consitlering the claimof the petitioner for} regularization^{of hisservrcesas PWSFitter/Waterman} as onal and^{consequentlYdirect} illegal,^{arbitrary and unconstituli} services^{of the} Petitionerⁱⁿ the^{resPondenls to regularizethe} terms of^{G.O.Ms.No'212,clated 22 04'1994by fotlowingthe low} laitl down^{by the llonorable Apex Court incase of} Sri B.srinivasulu^{and othersVs Nellutu Municipal Corporation} representecl^{by its Comnrissioner'Nelluru District' Andhra} Pradesh,^{reportedin 2015SCC online SC 1797 for lhe purpose} of Pension^{and other benefirs ancl to considerhis case for} promotion^{to the postof PWS Fitter/Watermanalong with} others with all consequenlial^{benefitsincludingmonelary} benefits...^....

¶30

2 Heard^{Sri V.Balaiah, learned counsel'appearing for} the petitioner^{and the learnedGovernment Pleaderfor'} Services-Il^{appearing for the respondents'}

¶31

¶32

Bri,ei'facts of the case are as follows :_

¶33

¶34

(4 The petitioner was initially appointe,l as pWS Fitter through employment exchange virle order No.133/86-T.2/pts, dated 05.09.1986 at Mothe Gram Parrchayat. Velpoor Mandal, Nizamabad District-6th respondenl. The petitioner is now working as a [,zrterman. The petiticner made several representations t() the 6rh responderLt seeking regularization of his services, as he has completed .34 years of service. However, the resoondents have not r,:lgularized his services.

¶35

(ii) 'rhe State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.021.1994, for regularizing the services of those employees of da y wage workers/NMRs or consolidated pay, subje,:t to the conditions that such employr_-r:s who worked continuousiy for a minimum periocl of fivr: vears and were corLtinuing as on 25. 1 1. 1993.

¶36

(iii) 'Ihe part-time employees working in the erstwhile Gram panchayat of Nizamabad District appointed through errLp loyment exchange submitted an apphcation

¶37

¶38

on 03.04.2021^{for regularizalion of their services' The 2"4} respondent^{issued Memo No'2441/CPR e' RElD2l2Ol9'} dated 13.O5.2021,^{to the 3'd respondent, wheieinthe} petitioner's name is^{shown at Sl.No'2'}

¶39

,^{(ir)The StateGovernment issuedG'O'Rt'No'762'} dated 24.12.2018,^{regularizing the servicesof (221 twenty} two part-time^{employeesworking in the erstwhile Gram} Panchayat of^{NizamabadDistrict'The reg;Jaizedpart-} time workers^{are juniors to the petitioner'}

¶40

(rr) The Apex Court^{in ttlLe STATE OF KARNATAI{A}

¶41

Vs. TMADEVI|^{held that the employeeconcernedshould} have worked for^{1O years or more in duly sanctioned post} without the beneht^{of protectionof the interim orders of} any court or^{protectionof the interim order of any Court or} Tribunal for^{the relief of regularization of service' Though} the petitioner^{has completed34 years of service' the} respondents^{havenot regularized the petitioner's seryices'} Hence, the Present^writ Petition'

¶42

'^{2006(4) scc I}

¶43

¶44

Le:uned counsel appearing for the petition,: r submits that as rrrr the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.N o.iZI2, dated 22 .O4 . ).994, the petitioner has completed five: years of continuous service and, therefore, in vielv of the, 1aw laid down by the Apex Court (supra) and as per G.O.l{s.No.212, dated t1,t.O4.7994, the petitioner is enlitled for regularization of his services, since he has completed more than 34 l ears of service, without any interrupl.ion. The petitioner's; appointment order does not mentio, u,hether the petitioner was appointed as a part tlme or iull time employee Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petit:ion by directing the respon<lents to cons;ider the petitioner's case for regularizing his services.

¶45

Learned Government pleader filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was appointed as a part_time employee and as per G.O.(p).No.112, dated 23.O7.1992, he has complered only (7) seven years of service as or the cut_ off date 25.II.1993 ald therefore, he is not elgible for regriarizat.ion. Further, G. O. Ms. No. 2 12, dated. 22. O 4. Igg 4,

¶46

¶47

is applicable only^{to the full time employees,and as the} petitioner was appointed^{on temporary basis' as a part-} time employee,^{thepetitioner is notentitled for} regtilarization of^{hisservices al1d,therefore'} G.O.Ms.No.212,^{dated 22.04.1994does not apply to the} petitioner.

¶48

6- Learned Government^{Pleader appearing forthe} respondents further^{states that the Hon'ble ApexCourt in} IIMADEVI's case^{(supra) had issued adirectionto} regdarize the^{servicesof temporaqr employees'who were} appointed in the^{sanctioned post and rendered more than} ten years of service.^{In the instart case, the petitionerwas} appointed as^a Part-time^{emPloYeein an unsanctioned} post. Therefore, the^{petitioner's case cannotbe considered} for regularizing^{his services.}

¶49

Learned Government^{Pleader appearing forthe} respondents^{furtherstatesthat where did not consider the} dated 23'07 '1997^ald cases under^{G.O.(P).No' 112}

¶50

¶51

il)

¶52

G.O.Ms.lttr,r.272, dated 22.O4.1994, the Government issued guidelines for multipurpose workers in Gram F,:r-nchayats in G.(t.Ms.No.51, dated 14.70.2019, wherein the Governm.ent issued orders duly enhalcing the wages of Gram Panchayat employees working in Gram palr:hayat on part time, full time, contract and outsou rcing at Rs.8,50O/ -. In the instant case, the petitioner is now enjoying tre benefit of G.O.Ms.No.S1 and getting a higher salary a-rrcl therefore the question of regularizatirrn of his services C tes not arise. Thus, there are no merits in the writ petitic,n alld the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶53

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsei for the respective parties, is of the conslc ered view that a perusal of the appointment order of the petitioner dated 05.09.1986 goes to show that the name of the petitioner stands at S1.No.17. He was appointedl on a temporar5r basis and in the apl;,rintment order, it v;rLs clearly mentioned that no future rigtrts will be

¶54

¶55

transferred and at any time, he may be^{removedwithout} issuing any notice.

¶56

In G.O.Ms.No.2l2, dated 22.04.1994, it is clearly mentioned that absorption shatl be against clear vacancies of posts considered necessary to be continued^{as per work} load excluding the vacancies a-lready notilied^{to the Andhra} Pradesh Public Service Commission/District^Selection Committee. As per the above G.O., the^{regularizationwill} only be done against the vacant^posts. In the^{instant case,} the petitioner was not appointed against^{the salctioned} post or vacant post ald he was appointed on^temporary basis. Moreover, the petitioner is aged^{58 years as on the} date of frling of the writ petition^{and kept quietfor all these} years and when G.O.Ms.No.212, dated^{22.04. 1994 was} being implemented, he has^{given only representationand} thereafter, he did not pursue the^{matter.Oncethe} appointment of the petitioner^{is on temporarybasis, he has} no right to ask any benefit fot^{regtiarizationof his services'} After a lapse of several^{years, the petitioner has filed the}

¶57

¶58

present writ petition for regttlarization of his services that too at ttre fagend of his service, which is not permissible, ald moreover he is enjoying the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.51, dated 1zl. 1O.2O19. Therefore, there are no merits in the

¶59

writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed

¶60