Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : T.CH.SURYA RAO
M.V.Subba Rao - Appellant
Versus
District Scheduled Caste Service Co-operative Society Ltd., Nellore - Respondent
Decided On : 10-16-00
Service Law - Regularisation of their services - Petitioners approached this Court for the second time when their request for regularisation of their services had been rejected by the second respondent by his proceedings in even when this Court by its order dated in Writ Petition no directed the second respondent to examine and consider the case of the petitioners in all aspects for regularisation of their services in terms of Government order, seeking an appropriate writ, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus to declare the said proceedings of the second respondent as illegal and arbitrary and for consequential direction to regularise their services as work Inspectors from the date of their joining in the service with all consequential and attendant benefits such as salaries, seniority - Petitioners also seek alternative directions to transfer the petitioners to any other departments of the state – Held, - Coming to the instant case, when the appointment of the petitioners, though on ad hoc basis, is not in doubt, they are eligible to occupy the posts admittedly - As aforesaid, they are being continued in service on ad hoc basis and it is not the case of the respondents that the necessity to keep them in service no more exists or at any time ceased- It is also not the case of the respondents that there is no budgetary sanction- Except the two conditions set forth supra, that there are no sanctioned posts and the petitioners have not completed five years of continuous service as on the cut-off date, no other grounds disqualifying the petitioners from regularisation are pleaded in this case - Obviously, the petitioners are being continued in service even till today, of course, on ad hoc basis and terminating their services intermittently in an artificial manner so as not to allow them to put in continuous service - Such artificial termination shall have to be disregarded as observed by the Supreme Court in the first mentioned case supra - Any way, the two judgments of the Supreme Court upon which the reliance has been placed by the learned Government Pleader and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent-Society are of no avail in this case - Twin objections thus raised in this case by the respondents have not been found favour with by this Court in the two judgments referred to supra - When those petitioners have been accommodated and their services have been regularised, no matter, pursuant to the directions given by this Court in the above two Judgments, without further challenging them, the request of the petitioners herein cannot be disregarded, particularly when they are similarly placed with that of those whose services have been regularised - Court fail to understand that when want of sanctioned posts has not come in the way of the respondents in having regularised the services of some of the Work Inspectors, who have been appointed on ad hoc basis as in the case of the petitioners herein, how the same ground can be pressed into service by the respondents in the case of these petitioners - It can be presumed ultimately, as has been held by the Apex Court in case (supra), about the need and warrant of regular posts when ad hoc appointment has been continued for long - For the last more than years the petitioners have been continuing in service - Fact that the petitioners have been allowed to continue for the last more than years be speaks the need for their continuance apart from the necessary presumption that can be drawn - For the foregoing reasons, the twin objections raised by the respondents in this case are not tenable - Court see no legal impediment in regularising the services of these petitioners - Therefore, the request of the petitioners shall have to be considered - In the result, no order as to costs – Allowed.
( 1 ) THE petitioners approached this Court for the second time when their request for regularisation of their services had been rejected by the second respondent by his proceedings in Rc. No. Al/881/88, dated 27-10-1997 even when this Court by its order dated 29-08-1997 in Writ Petition no. 8534 of 1997 directed the second respondent to examine and consider the case of the petitioners in all aspects for regularisation of their services in terms of g. O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22-04-1994, seeking an appropriate writ, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus to declare the said proceedings of the second respondent as illegal and arbitrary and for consequential direction to regularise their services as work Inspectors from the date of their joining in the service with all consequential and attendant benefits such as salaries, seniority, etc. The petitioners also seek alternative directions to transfer the petitioners to any other departments of the state.
( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioners seems to be that they having been appointed on an ad hoc basis as Work Inspectors by the first respondent herein on various dates, initially for a period of 89 days, however continued to be in service without breaks, despite the orders passed by the respondents directing the Mandal Development Officers to give a break in service after every 89 days, their services are eligible to be regularised. The first respondent-Society is fully funded and controlled by the State Government and there is sufficient workload for all the employees. It is the further grievance of the petitioners that the Work Inspectors appointed by the first respondent-Society are being paid regular salaries by issuing the circulars dated 18-02-1987 and 19-02-1987 pursuant to the directions given by this Court in the Writ Petitions filed by them earlier thereto. The wages being paid to them are not commensurate with the work they are expected to discharge. Under such circumstances, the petitioners moved this Court in Writ Petition No. 8534 of 1997 for directions to regularise their services as work Inspectors. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by an Order dated 29-08-1997 directing the respondents to consider the regularisation of. the services of the petitioners in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22-04-1994. However, the second respondent rejected the request of the petitioners for regularisation and for regular pay scales on the premises that the petitioners had not completed five years of continuous service as on 25-11-1993, and that the third respondent by circular rc. No. LC/1914/apsc/95, dt. 09-04-1997 directed not to regularise the services of the petitioners as there were no sanctioned posts. Challenging the same, as aforesaid, the petitioners approached this Court again.
( 3 ) THE respondents resisted the writ petition by filing a counter that the petitioners have not completed five years of continuous service as on 25-11-1993 as their services used to be terminated after every 89 days pursuant to the directions of the second respondent in his proceedings rc. No. 881/88/1, dated 19-10-1993 issued to all the Mandal Development Officers to effect break in services of the petitioners in every 89 days and that there are no sanctioned posts of Work Inspectors in the staff pattern of the first respondent-Society and that the respondents 1 to 3 are not competent to regularise the services of the petitioners under Act 2/94 as amended under Act 3/98 and Act 27/98 and, therefore, their services cannot be regularised in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22-04-1994.
( 4 ) THE third petitioner, who passed b. Tech. (Civil), the petitioners 1, 4 and 5, who possessed Diploma in Civil engineering, and the petitioners 2, 6 and 7, who passed I. T. I, in the trade of drughtsman (Civil) and having duly registered their names in the Employment exchange are obviously qualified and eligible to be appointed as Work Inspectors (Technical ). They were appointed as Work
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
