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.

ORDER:

SUREPALLI NANDA, J.

Heard Sri CH.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in the last grade post for continuously working till date in temporary post of last grade in contingent establishment on compassionate grounds from 05/07/1988 nor regularizing his services even on completion of 34 long years service by not extending the last grade pay benefits with periodical increments from time to time with effect from 05/07/1988 to till date from time to time with arrears as per GO Ms. No. 687 dated 03/10/1977 to till date is highly unjust and unfair as per Article 14, 16, 21, 39(d),43 and 300-A of Constitution of India by subjecting petitioner for exploitative enslavement due to his helpless conditions of poverty poor social economical and political background by taking it as advantage by the respondents in continuing her on pittance wages of Rs.4,000/-pm and prays to direct the respondent herein to treat the temporary services of petitioner in the last grade post of sweeper as regular one for all purposes by granting last grade pay with periodical increment revised from time to time from the date of appointment of the petitioner for working 34 long years without any service progress with 100% compensation on arrears of pay as per the principle laid by the Honourable Supreme Court in C.A.No.3416-3445 of 2010, dated 19.02.2019 in the case of Union of India Vs Avtar Chand (2019 3 ALD SC 32) and in the case of Prem Singh Vs State of UP and Batch cases (reported in 2019 10 SCC 516 in paras 36 and 37) in the case of Netram Sahu Vs State of Chattisgarh and Anr in Civil Appeal No.1254 of 2018 dated 23/03/2018 followed by DB Orders issued in the case of Kadar Basha in WP. No. 26788 of 2017, dated 10/08/2017 DB with cost by applying aforesaid principle laid by the Honourable Apex Court under Article 141 of our Constitution and pass…”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placing reliance on the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition pertaining in particular, to the services rendered by petitioner with the respondents herein for more than a decade contends that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.

PERUSED THE RECORD:-

DISCUSSI ON AND CONCLUSION:-

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the subject issue in the present case is squarely covered by the order of this Court, dated 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2007 reported in 2011(1) ALD, Page 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2010, dated 10.06.2013 and also order, dated 19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.27217 of 2017 reported in 2018 (2) ALD Page 282 and also the order, dated 21.04.2020 passed in W.P.No.23057 of 2019 reported in 2020(4) ALD Page 379.

5. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 submits that the grievance of the petitioner as put-forth in the present Writ Petition had not been addressed to the respondents herein as on date and therefore, the petitioner cannot complain inaction on the part of respondents herein in considering the gr