Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY
P.Dharma Rao - Appellant
Versus
Managing Director, A.P.T.T.D.C., ltd., Sccunderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 03-19-96
REGULARISATION OF SERVICES - G. O. MS. NO. 212, DATED 22-4-1994 - INTERPRETATION - CONTINUOUS SERVICE - MEANING - APPOINTMENT IN SANCTIONED POSTS - NECESSITY - MANDAMUS - ISSUANCE - CONDITIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, boat drivers appointed on consolidated pay in 1987, sought regularisation of their services under G. O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22-4-1994, which mandated regularisation of services of daily wage workers who had worked continuously for a minimum period of five years and were continuing as on 25-11-1993. The 1st respondent rejected their claim on the grounds that they had not completed the minimum required period of service of five years and were not appointed in sanctioned posts. The petitioners challenged this order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned order was illegal and ultra vires G. O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22-4-1994. It interpreted the term "continuous service" to mean that the employees should have worked for a minimum period of five years, including periods of sickness, casual leaves, and national and festival holidays. The court also held that the requirement of appointment in sanctioned posts was not a condition precedent for regularisation under the G. O.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners had completed the minimum required period of service of five years as per G. O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22-4-1994? 2. Whether the petitioners were required to be appointed in sanctioned posts for regularisation under the G. O.? 3. Whether the impugned order rejecting the petitioners' claim for regularisation was illegal and ultra vires the G. O.?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the term "continuous service" in G. O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22-4-1994, to mean that the employees should have worked for a minimum period of five years, including periods of sickness, casual leaves, and national and festival holidays. This interpretation was based on the common understanding of the term and the object of the G. O., which was to regularise the services of daily wage workers who had worked for a substantial period of time. 2. The court held that the requirement of appointment in sanctioned posts was not a condition precedent for regularisation under the G. O. This was because the G. O. did not specify any such requirement and the 1st respondent had itself admitted that there were clear vacancies and a need to continue the petitioners' services. 3. The court held that the impugned order rejecting the petitioners' claim for regularisation was illegal and ultra vires the G. O. This was because the 1st respondent had failed to properly consider the petitioners' cases and had acted in a manner that frustrated the object of the G. O.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, declared the impugned order illegal, and issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22-4-1994.
( 1 ) THE petitioners pray for an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Rc. No. 771/pl/admn. /ttdc/94, dated 19-10-1995 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners in their respective posts together with consequential benefits.
( 2 ) ALL the petitioners herein were selected and appointed on 16-11-1987 by the 1st respondent herein as boat drivers and were allotted to work at various places on consolidated amount of Rs. 400/- per month. Immediately after completion of one year, the 1st respondent, by proceedings dated 26-9-1988 enhanced the wages to the petitioners from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 800/-per month with effect from 1-10-1988 and thereafter there is a further enhancement in the wages from Rs. 800/- to Rs. 1050/- with effect from 1-5-1992 vide proceedings dated 22-10-1992 issued by the 1st respondent. The salary was again enhanced to rs-1268 / - per month in the year, 1993. The petitioners have undergone training fornavigation upkeep and maintenance of engines and maintenance of modern fishing gears and mechanised boats. They have also undergone training in A. P. Port Department, Kakinada Port during the year, 1991-92 for a period of 12 months. The petitioners also underwent training in Fisheries Department of the andhra Pradesh Government for a period of 12 months during the year, 1985-86 and all of them hail from poor families and could not further prosecute their studies and they have no other means to live except the job which they are doing.
( 3 ) IT is specifically stated that the petitioners having been appointed in the year, 1987 are continuously working for a period of more than 8 years in the establishment of the 1st respondent. Their services are yet to be regularised and absorbed by the 1st respondent -Corporation though some of the employees who are working along with the petitioners were absorbed and regularised into their respective services. Several representations made by the petitioners did not yield any result. It is stated that the Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22-4-1994 directing all the establishments under the control of the State government to regularise the services of all those temporary employees who have put in five years of service and who are continuing in service as on 25-11-1993. The petitioners assert that they have been working continuously ever since the date of appointment in the year, 1987 and have already completed five years of service even by 25-11-1993. It is alleged by the petitioners that all the similarly situated employees were considered but not their cases. The petitioners were, therefore, constrained to file W. P. No. 13031 of 1995 and this court passed orders directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 212 dated 22-4-1994. The 1st respondent however, rejected the petitioners claim for regularisation by orders dated 19-10-1995 on the ground that they have not completed the minimum required period of service of five years as per G. O. Ms. No. 212 dated 22-4-1994 as on 25-11-1993 and the petitioners were not appointed in the sanctioned posts and that there are no clear vacancies.
( 4 ) IN the instant writ petition, the petitioners assail the said order and contend that the 1st respondent had not taken the service of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment which works out for more than eight years of service. The action on the part of the respondents herein is alleged to be arbitrary/ illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
( 5 ) IT is categorically asserted by the petitioners that ever since the appointment, the petitioners were engaged continuously in the service of the 1st respondent-corporation and have put up more than 240 days of service in every calender year.
( 6 ) IT is stated th
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
