IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Surepalli Nanda, J.
M.Ramesh and others - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Telangana Rep. by its Chief Secretary and others - Respondents
W.P. No.5819 of 2018
Decided On : 09-12-2022
REGULARIZATION - Borewell Mechanics - G.O.Rt.No.182, dated: 14.03.2017, G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance Department, dated 22.04.1994, Nihal Singh and others v. State of Punjab, (2013) 14 SCC 65, State of Punjab and others vs Jagjit Singh and others, (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1, State of Karnataka and others v M.L.Kesari and others, 2010(9) SCC 247, Hussain Bhai v. Alath Factory Thezhilali Union, (1978) 4 SCC 257, G.Srinivasa Chary, Petitioner v. State of Telangana, Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar, (2015) 8 SCC 265, State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad, (2014) 7 SCC 223, Civil Appeal No.2979 of 1992
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Borewell Mechanics, sought regularization of their services after being engaged for more than a decade. The respondents engaged them on a need basis, paid through third-party contractors, and denied regularization citing lack of sanctioned posts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were engaged for a substantial period, rendering similar duties as regular employees, and entitled to wages on par with regular employees. The engagement through third-party contractors violated their right to life under Article 21.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of regularization by the respondents based on lack of sanctioned posts and engagement through third-party contractors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various judgments to establish that the petitioners were entitled to regularization after rendering continuous service for more than 10 years, and the engagement through third-party contractors violated their constitutional rights.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order denying regularization, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' case for regularization within two months.
ORDER :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Services II and learned standing counsel for respondents.
2. The Present Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing the Proceedings No. 37/CPR&RE/C2/2015, Dt:27.10.2016 in not regularizing the service of the Petitioners, as regularized the service of the one of the members of the union Sri. Md. Masood Ali, Borewell Mechanic, working on the basis of NMR at both, Adilabad District through G.O.Rt.No. 182, dated: 14.03.2017 as illegal, arbitrary, highly discriminatory, unjust, unfair, irrational, unconstitutional, unlawful, mockery, Perverse, Irrational and against the Articles 12, 14, 16, 19, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India and against to the Principles of Natural Justice and against to the G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance Department, dated 22.04.1994 and against to a catena of Judgments of the Apex Court and set aside the same, Consequently direct the 1st respondent to regularize the service of the petitioners as regularized the service of the colleague of the Petitioners Sr. Md. Masood Ali, Borewell Mechanic working at both Adilabad District through G.O.Rt.No.182, dated: 14.03.2017.
3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:
a) The petitioners, having completed their Technical Qualification (I.T.I) were appointed through various proceedings by Respondents on N.M.R basis as Bore well mechanic.
b) Despite petitioners providing better services and working hard, they were neither paid lawful wages nor were they absorbed and regularized by Respondents.
c) Many representations were made to the Respondents to pay lawful salary to the Petitioner, but no action was taken by the Respondents. Despite being appointed as Bore Well Mechanics on N.M.R basis few decades ago, they were neither absorbed nor paid lawful salary for the past 2 (Two) decades. In the past, they were abruptly and without notice, were orally instructed to not to attend their duties.
d) Subsequently, W.P. No. 14145 of 2016 was filed against the respondents for not considering the representations of Borewell Mechanics Union of the State and this court had passed orders on 25.04.2016 directing the respondents to consider the representation Borewell Mechanics Union of the State and pass appropriate orders within Eight Weeks. Therefore, the petitioners filed Contempt Case No. 1908 of 2016. After filing of said contempt case, the respondents passed proceedings No. 37/CPR&RE/C2/2015 dated 27.10.2016.
e) Instead of regularizing all the members in service, only one Mr. Sri Masood Ali, has been regularized in the service through G.O.Rt.No.182 dated 14.03.2017. They are highly discriminated against by the Petitioners and even though their Qualification, Nature of Work, Duties and Responsibilities are similar between N.M.R and Regularized employee, they were not regularized and issued Proceeding No. 37/CRP&RE/C2/2015 dated 27.10.2016 and the same is against the Constitution of India. This act of Discrimination and Arbitrariness is against the meaning, scope and content of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this writ petition is filed.
4. Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondents 3, in brief, is as follows:
a) The Hand Pump mechanics were engaged as per need by the Concerned Mandal Parishad Development Officers on piece work basis and they are not termed as NMR/Contract employees. There is no individual contract between the employer and the employee in writing and even if there is any such contract, the same will become invalid as and when the work is complete.
b) They were working under a scheme which had no future and their payment was from the fund available under the Fund available in the scheme and in some cases wages are being paid through 3rd party. They were paid for the said piece of work done by them on basis of a
District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480
Hussain Bhai v. Alath Factory Thezhilali Union
State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad
State of Karnataka and others v M.L.Kesari and others
State of Karnataka v Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 73
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the engagement of workers through outsourcing agencies must comply with the law laid down in relevant cases and statutory provisions. The cour....
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.