IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
D. Uppalaiah and Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Telangana and Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 39928 of 2017
Decided On : 09-12-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 12, 14, 16, 19, 21, 23 – Police Act, 1861 – Illegal, arbitrary, highly discriminatory, unjust, unfair, irrational, unconstitutional, unlawful – Issuing Proceedings – Held, Respondents herein cannot deny relief of regularization to petitioners as per Para 53 of decision in Umadevi’s case, which permits one time exercise of regularization to be done for personal employed on temporary basis/daily wages etc, who have rendered continuous service – Respondents herein cannot take services of petitioners for years together without regularising their services and indulge in such a practice inconsistent with their obligation to function in accordance with constitution as observed by Apex Court and Others vs. State of Punjab which clearly held that “sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven” and State has to create them by a conscious choice on basis of some rational assessment of need – Petition allowed.
ORDER:
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Services II and learned standing counsel for respondents.
2. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing the Proceedings No. 37/CPR&RE/C2/2015, dated 27.10.2015 in not regularized the service of the Petitioners as regularized the service of the one of the members of the union Md. Masood Ali, Bore-well 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 and against to 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 Sri Md. Masood Ahmed, Bore well Mechanic working on the basis of NMR basis 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:
(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.
(d) 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.
(e) 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 the High Court had passed orders on 25.04.2016 directing the respondents to consider the representation of Borewell Mechanics Union of the State and pass appropriate orders within Eight Weeks. As no orders were passed, Contempt Case No. 1908 of 2016 has been filed. After filing of said contempt case, the respondents passed orders without considering the quantum of law, vide proceedings No. 37/CPR&RE/C2/2015 dated 27.10.2016. 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.
(f) The question of Daily wages or Contract Employees is not the question here. When there are similar work and same working conditions, they are entitled to Equal Remuneration for Equal Work and same has been held by the Apex Court in Marathwada Agricultural University and Others vs. Marathwada Krishi Vidyapith M.S.K.S. and Others (2007) 8 SCC 497 and State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh and Others in C.A. No. 213 of 2013 and its batch, dated 26.10.2016. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed.
4. Counter Affidavit filed by Respondents, in brief, is as follows:
Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar
District Collector/Chairperson and Others vs. M.L. Singh and Others
Hussain Bhai vs. Alath Factory Thezhilali Union
State of Jarkhand vs. Kamal Prasad
State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi
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....
The court mandated regularization for longtime temporary employees, emphasizing that states must adhere to constitutional employment principles regarding service continuity after a decade of service.
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.