Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Korrapati Kondaiah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors – Respondent
Writ Petition No.2688 of 2021
Decided On : 07.04.2021
Service Law - Pre-regularization service - Determination/Counting for benefit - Appointment as N.M.R. Technical Work - Petitioner was originally appointed as N.M.R. Technical Work Inspector on daily wage basis on then Narasaraopet Panchayat Raj Wing and worked on which he was terminated from service without following the procedure laid down by law said termination was subject matter of challenge on file of Labour Court, Guntur - Labour Court on a comprehensive adjudication of dispute passed a Common Award dated along with holding termination of petitioner as illegal and directed respondents therein to reinstate petitioner with continuity of service with back wages –
Finding of the Court:
Case petitioner joined in post of Office Subordinate accepting the appointment order vide Proceedings Deputy Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Guntur and even now without challenging same cannot turn around and claim regularization with retrospective effect - Therefore petitioner is not entitled to claim any benefit from the date when he completed five years of service in post of N.M.R. Technical Inspector but is entitled to claim benefit from the day when he was appointed as Office Subordinate - Accordingly –Court hold that petitioner is not entitled to claim retrospective regularization from the day when he completed five years of service but entitled to claim benefit from when his services were regularized - Consequently petitioner is not entitled to claim financial benefits as Office Subordinate from day prior to his regularization vide Proceedings petitioner is that petitioner is entitled to claim benefit of past service for fixation of pensionary benefit - In Government of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Venkaiah (referred supra) Division Bench in clear terms declared that such service can be considered for purpose of pensionary benefits only – Accordingly petitioner is entitled to claim counting of past service from the date of completion of five years of service in the post only after limited purpose of fixation of pension –
Result: Petition allowed
ORDER:
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the petitioner’s services on completion of five years of service, as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to regularize the petitioner’s services on completion of five years of service and direct the respondent to count the petitioner’s service rendered prior to regularization for the purpose of retirement benefits, grant arrears of salary arising out of such regularization with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum.
2. The petitioner was originally appointed as N.M.R. Technical Work Inspector on daily wage basis on 18.06.1985 in the then Narasaraopet Panchayat Raj Wing and worked upto 03.03.1987 on which date, he was terminated from service without following the procedure laid down by law. The said termination was subject matter of challenge in I.D.No.253 of 1987 on the file of Labour Court, Guntur. The Labour Court, on a comprehensive adjudication of the dispute, passed a Common Award dated 05.05.1989 along with I.D Nos.252 of 1987 and 379 of 1987 holding the termination of the petitioner as illegal and directed the respondents therein to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service with 1/3rd back wages. The said Award was published on the notice board of Labour Court, Guntur on 19.06.1986. Aggrieved by the same, the official respondents filed W.P.No.10552 of 1990 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the same was dismissed on 04.08.1997, as such the Award attained finality. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner was reinstated on 24.09.1990 at Narasaraopet Mandal Praja Parishad and worked there upto 21.11.2011.
3. The petitioner filed O.A.No.6553 of 1998 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal seeking regularization of his services and the same was dismissed on 16.09.1998. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18561 of 1999 before High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the same was disposed of on 10.11.2009 by the Division Bench of the High Court, setting aside the order of Administrative Tribunal and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22-04-1994 (for short ‘G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994’). Pursuant to the order of the High Court, the services of the petitioner were ultimately regularized as per the proceedings dated 15.11.2011 of Deputy Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Guntur as Office Subordinate with prospective effect. This was issued based on the Government Orders in G.O.Rt.No.1534 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Estt.V.A) Department dated 03.10.2011. Pursuant to the same, the services of the petitioner were regularized as Office Subordinate and he is presently working as Office Subordinate at Sattenapalli Mandal Praja Parishad.
4. The petitioner got issued a registered legal notice dated 16.01.2020 to the respondents requesting to count his service on completion of five years for the purpose of regularization and pay consequential benefits arising out of such regularization. Respondents having received the same failed to respond to the notice, thereby, the inaction of the respondents is questioned as arbitrary and illegal, as the delay n regularization is not attributable to this petitioner and it is attributable to the respondents. However, in B. Srinivasulu v. Nellore Municipal Corporation, 2019 (3) SCT 697(SC), the Apex Court clarified the procedure to be followed for counting pre-regularization service. Following the same principle, the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Venkaiah, 2018 (4) ALT 6 held that, the claim of the employee should have been considered immediately if not through pre-regularization services and get counted for the purpo
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
