Temporary employees are entitled to regularization from their initial engagement date, ensuring fair treatment and notional fixation of pay, but not to arrears of pay.

Order :

K MANMADHA RAO, J.

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring the Paragraph No.5(f) and (g) of Regularization of Messengers- cum-Sweepers/Daily Wage Workers working on Casual Basis/Casual Labour as Office Attendants (Multi-purpose) in Group-C, 2018 issued in Circular No.28, Ref.No.11/3, dated 21.05.2018 issued by the 1^st Respondent as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, malafide, unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.24779 2011, dated 27.12.2017 as well as contrary to the Award passed by the Hon’ble National Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad in I.A.No.8/1988 in Ref.No.1/1988, dated 26.04.1988 apart from contrary to the terms of settlement recorded by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Vijayawada in File No.7/123/2014- ALC-VJA, dated 29.09.2014, and set aside the same and issue consequential direction directing the Respondents to forthwith consider the case of the Petitioners for regularization of their services with effect from the date of their initial engagement in the cadre of Sweeper-cum- Messenger which was subsequently re-designated as Office Attendant (Multi purpose) with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary, seniority, promotion as well as pensionary benefits….”

2. Brief facts of the case are that all the petitioners were initially engaged by the respondent-bank as Temporary Part Time Sweepers (TPTS) during 1989 and 2011 at various branches in three districts i.e., Guntur, East Godavari and West Godavari to discharge the duties performed by regular Messengers in the respondent-bank. Even though the petitioners performed the duties attached to the post of Messengers, the authorities used to pay very meagre wages on daily wage basis, even not as per Minimum Wages Act. The petitioners accepted such conditions to some extent hoping that subsequently authorities will pay regular salary or at least Minimum Timescale on par with regular Messengers which was subsequently re-designated as Sweeper-cum-Messenger which was re-designated as Office Attendant (Multi- purpose) hoping that the authorities will regularize their services in that last grade service, in as much as not only the petitioners possessed requisite qualification for appointment to last grade post, in as much as earlier similarly placed employees’ services were not only regularized by the management, but also paid regular salary from the date of their initial engagement as per the Award passed by the National Industrial Tribunal in I.A.No.8/1988 in Ref.No.1/1988 as per the directions given by Hon’ble Supreme Court based on letter sent by some employees working in Chaitanya Grameena Bank, who are similar to the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners with great hope and confidence accepted such meagre wages and performed the regular duties attached to the post of Messenger, Sweeper-cum-Messenger, Office Attendant (Multi-purpose). Despite the petitioners making representations including representation by the Unions, the respondent-bank has not considered the request of the petitioners for regularization of their services and payment of regular salary on par with regular employees or at least Minimum Timescale. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.24779/2011 seeking a declaration to regularize their services in Group-C with all consequential benefits while seeking declaration to the effect that continuing the petitioners on casual basis for the last 1½ decades without regularizing the services as arbitrary and illegal. The said writ petition was admitted by this Court and the respondent-bank filed counter. When the said writ petition was pendin