Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Idaguttu Narayanamma- Appellant
Versus
The Superintendent of Police - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.25201 OF 2020
Decided On : 16-03-2021
Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 – Section 2 – Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 16, 21, 226 – Regularize the services – Writ of Mandamus under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the action of the Respondents not regularizing the services of the petitioner as Sweeper and not paying regular salary as well as not paying minimum time scale attached to the post of Sweeper till regularizing the services of the petitioner and converting the petitioner as outsourcing employee by paying remuneration through the contractor instead of authorities as arbitrary illegal discriminatory malafide and unconstitutional violating Articles 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab Vs Jagjit Singh and others as reported in 20171 Supreme Court Cases 148 and issue consequential directions directing the respondents to forthwith regularize the services of the petitioner as Sweeper and pay regular salary attached to the post of Sweeper w e f date of completion of 5 years of service as part time contingent employee with all constitutional benefits and further direct the Respondents to forthwith pay the minimum time scale attached to the post of Sweeper till regularizing the service of the petitioner as Sweeper w e f from 01041987 with all arrears and also direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as contingent Sweeper by paying salary by the authorities instead of treating as outsourcing employee by paying salary through the contractor
Finding of court: Absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees dehors the rules and constitutional scheme of public employment cannot be granted by the Courts. – As regards the circular dated 31.3.1998 the same cannot override Article 16 of the Constitution of India, and hence regularization cannot be granted under the said circular. – Even if the contract labourers or casual workers or ad hoc employees have worked for a long period they cannot be regularized dehors the rules for selection. – There are conflicting views regarding regularization. However, it is clear from the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (referred supra), that if these petitioners were selected based on regular notification and based on regular selection process in the existing vacancies, subject to satisfying the selection; she is entitled for regularization or absorption in the department. – But, here, the petitioner failed to satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (referred supra) and consequently, the petitioner is not entitled for regularization or absorption in the regular post, extending regular pay scale. – Court is of the considered view that the petitioner failed to show that she has no existing legal right, thereby, this Court cannot issue a direction by way of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as sweeper and to pay regular salary along with minimum time scale attached to the post of sweeper. – Consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Result: Writ Petition Dismissed
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
The factual matrix of the case is as follows:
The petitioner was appointed as part time sweeper in Kadiri Rural Police Station on 03.04.1987 on consolidated payment of Rs.625/-per month, which was increased from time to time, treating the petitioner as only part time contingent sweeper and paying remuneration attached to the post of part time sweeper as per the orders issued by the Government from time to time. The first respondent also furnished the list of part time contingent sweepers working in Anantapur District on an application under Right to Information Act vide proceedings date 10.01.2013, wherein the petitioner’s name was shown at Serial No.31.
It is the contention of the petitioner that, though she was rendering the service as sweeper in the concerned police station on par with other regular sweepers working in the department, she was not paid regular salary attached to that post in the minimum time scale, apart from considering her case for absorption/regularization in the cadre of sweeper whenever regular post of sweeper is available or regularizing the service of the petitioner as sweeper. The authorities are continuing the petitioner as contingent sweeper or part time sweeper since long time, thereby, such action is violative fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner made various representations dated 04.09.1993 and 01.05.2006 to the authorities requesting only to pay the minimum time scale attached to the post of sweeper but also to regularize the services of the petitioner or to absorb the petitioner as sweeper in the department and pay regular salary on completing the service of five years with effect from 01.04.1987.
It is contended that, the authorities did not consider the requests made by the petitioner; instead of regularising the services and paying minimum time scale till regularising her services as sweeper, the authorities are trying to convert the petitioner as an outsourcing employee, compelling her to receive lesser remuneration, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice.
The petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Chander Mohan Negi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2020 SCC Online SC 374 (To Be Changed) and judgment of High Court of Telangana in G. Srinivasa Chary v. State of Telangana, W.P.No.47675 of 2018 dated 07.08.2020 observing as follows:
(a) The Writ Petition is
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
