The High Court directed the regularization of long-serving employees based on the principles established in Umadevi's case, emphasizing the need for lawful government discretion in employment matters.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to pass a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of the mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in not regularizing/absorbing the service of the Petitioner in the post of whole-time sweeper in the 4th Respondent’s establishment as also the inaction of the respondents in not paying the Petitioner salary in the timescale as applicable to the post of whole-time sweeper in the Last Grade service as being illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to regularize/absorb the Petitioner in the post of whole-time sweeper in the 4th Respondent’s establishment with effect from 8.8.1997 along with all consequential benefits including salary in the applicable time-scale, allowances, emoluments and postretirement benefits as applicable to the post and arrears thereof and pass any other order or orders…”

2. Heard Shri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Sriram Polali, counsel on record for the petitioner and Shri M.V. Rama Rao, Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner was appointed as part-time Masalchi in 4th respondent’s establishment (Advocate General’s office) in the erstwhile High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh on 27.02.1986 on temporary basis. The petitioner made a representation dated 09.09.1991 in the office of respondent No.4 seeking absorption as Sweeper. The petitioner was paid enhanced wages as granted to the contingent employees of high court on par with the regular employees. A proposal was sent on 11.07.1996 to upgrade one of the posts of part-time sweeper in the office of Advocate General to a whole-time sweeper post in the time scale of Rs.1375 – 2375 and to permit the 4th respondent to absorb the petitioner in the upgraded post. A specific request was made that there was a need for whole-time sweeper. The proposal of the office of the Advocate General to upgrade one part-time post of sweeper to that of whole-time sweeper in the time scale of Rs.1375-2375 and to absorb the existing incumbent Smt. Saradamma was accepted in Finance and Law Department and was placed to obtain the orders of the Council of Ministers. The 2nd respondent sought information from the office of the learned Advocate General and to send regularization proposal to the 3rd respondent. On 04.11.1996, the proposal was accepted in full by the Chief Secretary and the same was forwarded to the Chief Minister for approval.

4. The office of the Chief Minister accepted the proposal for the petitioner’s regularization and also up-gradation. Later, the 2nd respondent issued a Memo, dated 26.04.1997, stating that the proposal stood deferred. A letter, dated 04.06.1997, was addressed to the Chief Secretary about necessity and need for an attender. By Memo, dated 08.08.1997, the post of part-time sweeper was upgraded to that of whole-time sweeper, subject to the post being filled up from the surplus staff. By letter dated 17.12.1997, the office of Advocate General brought to the notice of Secretary to Government (Legal Affairs), Law Department, that the words, “…to absorb the existing incumbent in the upgraded post was omitted by the Law Department” by oversight and a request was made for placing the matter again before the Council of Ministers for absorption of incumbent Smt. Saradamma by relaxing the orders in G.O.Ms.No.275, dated 14.12.1995.

5. Though by letter dated 17.12.1997, it was informed that an error had crept in and a rectification was sought, the same was not considered. By letter dated 29.12.1998, the 2nd respondent sought service particulars of the petitioner, whether the petitioner had completed 10 years of minimum service by the cut-off date as on 25.11.1993 as required in G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 23.07.1997. In response, the off