Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.
D. Sathar Saheb & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
W.P. No. 22489 of 2020
Decided On : 08-09-2022
REGULARIZATION OF SERVICE - G.O. MS. NO. 333, DATED 23.09.2011 - G.O. MS. NO. 212, DATED 22.04.1994 - G.O.(P). NO. 112, DATED 23.07.1997 - The court held that the petitioners' services should be regularized retrospectively from the date of completion of five years from the date of appointment for the purpose of claiming pension and pensionary benefits, but they are not entitled to actual monetary benefits for the said period in the form of arrears of pay.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were appointed as pump operator-cum-watchman and sweeper, respectively, and their services were regularized vide G.O. Ms. No. 333, dated 23.09.2011. They challenged the G.O., contending that their services should have been regularized retrospectively from the date of completion of five years from the date of appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners' services should be regularized retrospectively from the date of completion of five years from the date of appointment for the purpose of claiming pension and pensionary benefits, but they are not entitled to actual monetary benefits for the said period in the form of arrears of pay.
Issues: Whether the petitioners' services should be regularized retrospectively from the date of completion of five years from the date of appointment for the purpose of claiming pension and pensionary benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the G.O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22.04.1994, which provides for the regularization of service of temporary employees who have completed five years of continuous service. The court also considered the judgments of the Supreme Court in 'B. Srinivasulu Vs. The Nellore Municipal Corporation' and 'District Collector/Chairman & Others Vs. M.L. Singh & Others 2009 (8) SC 480', which held that the incumbents therein have to be regularized with effect from the date of their completing five years continuous service.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioners' retrospectively i.e., on completion of five years from the date of appointment, for the purpose of claiming their pension and pensionary benefits. It is however made clear that the petitioners are not entitled to actual monetary benefits for the said period in the form of arrears of pay.
JUDGMENT
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J. - The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the G.O. Ms. No. 333, dated 23.09.2011 as illegal, arbitrary in regularizing the petitioners' service from the date of G.O. which is contrary to law as held by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court and consequently set aside the said G.O. and regularize the petitioners' service retrospectively from the date of completion of five (5) years from the appointment for the purpose of claiming the pensionary benefits.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-IV appearing for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1st petitioner was appointed as a pump operator-cum-watchman through proceedings Rc. No. 21/86, dated 01.10.1986 and joined his duty in the 5th respondent Office. The 2nd petitioner was appointed as a sweeper and subsequently as a pump operator-cum-watchman vide proceedings dated 01.10.1985. Both the petitioners were regularized vide G.O. Ms. No. 333, dated 23.09.2011.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that regularizing the service of the petitioners prospectively is bad and that the respondents failed to consider the service of the petitioners from the date of joining the Office as they have completed five (5) years service as contemplated under G.O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22.04.1994. Hence, the petitioners would submit that their services ought to have been regularized on completion of five years from the date of appointment and thus prayed to set aside the said G.O. and regularize the petitioners on completion of five years from the date of appointment.
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader would contend that the petitioners are not entitled for regularization of their services from the date of joining as they were temporary employees and that their appointment is not in terms of the G.O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22.04.1994 and the same is not applicable to the petitioners herein and G.O.(P). No. 112, dated 23.07.1997 is applicable to the petitioners, as such the petitioners' services were regularized as per G.O. Ms. No. 333, dated 23.09.2011. He relied on the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Secretariat and another Vs. A. Singamuthu (2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 113' and 'Surendra Kumar and Others Vs. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and Others (2015) 14 Supreme Court Cases 382'. He would further contend that as the petitioners were appointed on temporary basis, as such their services were regularized as per G.O. Ms. No. 333, dated 23.09.2011.
6. The contention of the respondents is that, the petitioners were initially appointed as temporary employees. Hence, G.O.(P). No. 112, dated 23.07.1997 is applicable to the petitioners and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. On going through the G.O. Ms. No. 333, dated 23.09.2011, it explicitly indicates that the petitioners were appointed in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 212, Finance (PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994. In view of the assertion in G.O. Ms. No. 333, dated 23.09.2011, the contention of the petitioners that G.O.(P). No. 112, dated 23.07.1997 is applicable has no room to stand and the issue involved in the present case is with regard to the regularization of service either prospectively or retrospectively for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Order passed by this Court in 'Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, PR & RD Department and others Vs. N. Venkaiah and others. He further relied on the Order dated 26.09.2019 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 14788 of 2019, Order dated 15.10.2019 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 1425 of 2019, Order dated 12.02.2021 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 34552 of 2016, Order dated 22.09.2021 passed by
Temporary employees who have completed five years of continuous service are entitled to regularization of their service with effect from the date of completion of five years of service.
The petitioners cannot claim regularization of their services from the date of initial appointment and were entitled to count only half of their service rendered in consolidated pay posts for pension....
Temporary post means a post carrying a definite rate of pay sanctioned for a limited time.
Pre-regularization service - claim of the employee should have been considered immediately if not through pre-regularization services and get counted for the purpose of terminal benefits
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
