Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. MANMADHA RAO
Mylauarapu Venkata Appa Rao – Appellant
Versus
Chaitanya Godavari Grameena Bank – Respondent
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 1st 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 consequen
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.
Temporary or part-time employees cannot claim regularization merely based on length of service without sanctioned posts, and must seek remedies through the designated Industrial Tribunal.
The court established that employees cannot claim regularization unless they are working against sanctioned posts, as per the Jharkhand Regularization Rules of 2015 and 2019.
Long-term service and performance of duties similar to regular employees justify the regularization of daily wage workers, regardless of initial irregular appointment procedures.
Long-term casual employees performing perennial duties should be regularized despite administrative inertia, ensuring adherence to employment principles established in earlier legal precedents.
Regularization of illegal appointments and entitlement to monetary benefits must be determined in accordance with the statutory provisions, relevant case laws, and government orders. Part-time employ....
The court ruled that prolonged engagement of casual workers without regularization violates fair employment standards, directing a scheme for regularization based on service length and suitability.
Regularization of service is the exclusive domain of the employer, and temporary and casual employees cannot seek regularization. Government orders come into effect from the date of issuance unless s....
Regularization of service under labor laws requires formal adherence to established processes; mere employment duration without appropriate applications does not confer entitlement.
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
