APHC010487052013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3457]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 12491/2013 Between:

1. V .SRINIVAS, S/O PUNDARIKAKSHAIAH PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT, O/O PROJECT DIRECTOR, A.P.STATE HOUSING CORPORATION, CHITTOOR, R/O 3-116, VELOOR ROAD, GREMSPET CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

2. M .R.JHANSI RANI, W/O BHASKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT, O/O PROJECT DIRECTOR, A.P.STATE HOUSING CORPORATION, CHITTOOR, R/O 22-1097, SBI COLONY, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. G OVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, SECRETARY, HOUSING DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.

2. T HE A P STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HIMAYATHNAGAR HYDERABAD.

3. T HE PROJECT DIRECTOR A P STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. K MOHAN RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. K MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY

2. M RAVINDRANATH REDDY(SC FOR APSHC)

The Court made the following:

ORDER:-

Petitioners were appointed as daily wage NMRs in the 2^nd respondent.

The 1^st petitioner was appointed on 16.02.1989 and the 2^nd petitioner was appointed on 17.05.1990. The petitioners were extended time scale from 03.02.2000 and the petitioners have been requesting for regularizing their services in terms of G.O.Rt.No.138, dated 08.05.2006.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondents have regularized several Work Inspectors who are working on NMR basis. However, insofar as regularizing the petitioners’ services is concerned, they have denied the benefit of G.O.Rt.No.138. It is further submitted that the 2^nd respondent has recommended the 54 employees who are working on NMR basis and are entitled for regularization. However, the 1^st respondent has rejected the same vide order dated 07.03.2012. The reason assigned by the 1^st respondent for rejecting the regularization of the services of 54 employees is that the employees were engaged without there being any clear vacancy and only 9 candidates were appointed against the vacancies. It is also submitted that the said reasoning is frivolous and is made out only for evading the regularization of the services of the petitioners. It is also stated that the said order that none of the petitioners could be considered for regularization, as they did not complete 5 years of service as on the cut-off date as mentioned in G.O.Ms.No. 212.

3. It is also submitted that the 1^st respondent has issued G.O.Rt.No.242 dated 22.11.2014 whereby the respondents considered regularization of several Junior Assistants. However, the petitioners’ case was not considered solely on the ground that the petitioners did not complete 5 years of service as on 25.11.1993.

4. Learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the 2^nd respondent submits that a detailed counter is filed and that the petitioners were engaged on daily wage basis. However, considering their services the 2^nd respondent has also considered their request and extended minimum time scale vide proceedings dated 30.03.2000. It is further submitted that insofar as regularization of other employees is concerned, the 1^st respondent has accorded sanction for regularizing the services of those employees who had completed 5 years of continuous service as on 25.11.1993 in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.212.

5. It is also submitted that the 1^st petitioner was engaged on a temporary basis and his appointment is liable to be terminated at any point of time without notice and without assigning any reasons, as was clearly intimated to the petitioners at the time of engaging them on daily basis on 16.02.1989. It is also submitted that the 2^nd petitioner had attained the age of superannuation pending disposal of the writ petition. Even her engagement was purely temporary and li