ORDER:

The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of proceedings F-2/116/CF/TTD/2001, dated 18.01.2002 whereby the respondent has rejected the case of the petitioner for regularizing the service into the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents appeared virtually for advancing the arguments.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce any record relating to his service in the TTD, the case was not considered for regularization. He further submits that the petitioner worked in the respondent-Devastanam on NMR basis and also several workmen were similarly placed along with the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the service certificate issued by the Forest Range Officer and TTD, Niladri Range, Tirumala to satisfy his claim of petitioner’s work in TTD. He has also drawn attention of this Court to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.18741 of 2001, wherein this Court had directed the respondents therein to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 16.03.2001. The respondent’s vide proceedings dated 18.01.2002, rejected the case of the petitioner for regularization.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has attained an age of superannuation by now and as such prayed this Court to grant compensation as the petitioner cannot be considered for regularization or re-engagement at this belated stage.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent filed a detailed counter and submits that the petitioner worked only from June, 1982 to March, 1986 which is not in dispute and that he worked under the contractor and not under the direct employment of the Devastanam. In so far as the claim of the petitioner with respect to regularizing the other NMR workers is concerned, learned Standing Counsel submits that the other employees have completed more than nine years of service. It is also submitted that the present Writ Petition is filed at a belated stage, almost after eight (08) years of rejecting the case of the petitioner for re-engagement or absorption. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is against the proceedings dated 18.01.2002 and as seen from the pleadings, there is no sufficient explanation for the delayed initiation of the present Writ Petition, apart from filing the service certificate issued by the Forest Range Officer and T.T.D, Niladri Range, Tirumala, no other document is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the additional material papers, wherein the Service Record and Attendance Record are placed on record.

7. Perused the record.

8. It is evident that they relate to the period of 1985-1986, but there is no material before this Court to consider the case of the petitioner either for a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for re-engagement or to direct the respondent to extend the benefits as applicable.

9. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________

JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 02.01.2024 SCH

288 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.18750 OF 2009 Date: 02.01.2024 SCH