IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J.
J. Pumachandra Rao, S/o Koteswara Rao - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 43245 Of 2017
Decided On : 01-12-2023
Regularization - Services - G.O.Ms.No.448, G.O.Ms.No.12 - The court discussed the petitioner's request for regularization of services as Asst. Grade-III, the appointment date, and the action of the respondents in regularizing the services. Key legal provisions such as G.O.Ms.No.448 and G.O.Ms.No.12 were referenced and interpreted in the context of the petitioner's case. The court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's acceptance of the regularization condition and the applicability of the judgments in Surendra Kumar v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and Union of India and others vs. Munshi Ram.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the regularization of his services as Asst. Grade-III from the date of his initial appointment, which was contested by the respondents. The court analyzed the petitioner's acceptance of the regularization condition and dismissed the Writ Petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's acceptance of the regularization condition precluded his claim for retrospective appointment, leading to the dismissal of the Writ Petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court could order the retrospective regularization of the petitioner's services and the impact of the petitioner's acceptance of the regularization condition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's acceptance of the regularization condition prevented his claim for retrospective appointment, citing relevant judgments in support of its decision.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-
2. The petitioner herein was temporarily appointed on 01.1985 as Typist on daily basis in District Office at Guntur of A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and he was orally terminated by proceedings dated 31.10.1988. Aggrieved by the oral termination order, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Labour Court, Guntur. The Labour Court, vide proceedings dated 24.06.1992 in I.D.No.283 of 1989, has directed the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner as Clerk-cum-Typist with continuity of service and other attendant benefits without back wages by setting aside the oral termination order.
3. Aggrieved by the said order of Labour Court dated 24.06.1992 in I.D.No.283 of 1989, the respondents herein have assailed the same in W.P.No.4236 of 1993 before the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad (hereinafter called as ‘High Court’) and the High Court has disposed of the said Writ Petition, vide order dated 24.06.1997.
4. Accordingly, the petitioner herein was reinstated on 05.06.1993 as Clerk-cum-Typist. The petitioner herein made several representations to the respondents 1 and 2 herein repeatedly for regularization of his services as per G.O.Ms.No.448, Food & Agriculture (C.S.III) Department dated 16.06.1989 with effect from 03.01.1985. The said date is the appointment date of the petitioner herein.
5. It is also pertinent to mention that the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.4868 of 1994 before the composite High Court to direct the respondents to regularize his services in the Corporation as Clerk-cum-Typist in pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.448, dated 16.06.1989 by paying back wages and on 24.06.1997, the High Court passed the order which reads as follows:
6. Basing upon the repeated representations, the 2nd respondent had sent the proposal to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent had considered the same in consultation with the Finance Department and the services of the petitioner were regularized by the 1st respondent, vide G.O.Ms.No.12, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department dated 28.07.2017, which reads as follows:
Surendra Kumar v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority : (2015) 14 SCC 382
The acceptance of a regularization condition precludes the claim for retrospective appointment.
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....
Regularization of services of provisional employees should revert to the date of their initial appointment, as established by legal precedents.
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.
Irregular or illegal appointments cannot be regularised, and the benefit of regularisation already granted by the government is a concession that cannot be extended further.
Point of law : Petitioner herein did not put in 10 years of service under the respondent herein at any point of time. While that being so, the impugned order, placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.22 and G.O....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.