An employer cannot deny regularization to a long-term employee who has served for over three decades by citing an absence of sanctioned posts, especially when parity with similarly placed employees has been judicially mandated and the termination constitutes an attempt to circumvent prior court orders.

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned notice vide proceedings No.RC.No.A1/241/TRICOR/2022-23, dated 15.12.2022, issued by the Respondent No.4 dispensing with the services of the petitioner from 16.12.2022 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and amounts to circumventing the orders of this Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.8859 of 2015 and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Sweeper cum Attender in 4th respondent corporation by suspending the notice vide proceedings No. RC. No.A1/241/TRICOR/2022-23, dated 15.12.2022, forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

W.P.No.41665 of 2022

This Court made the following

ORDER:

The Writ Petition No.41665 of 2022 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner for the following relief:

“..to declare the impugned notice vide proceedings No.RC.No.A1/241/TRICOR/2022-23, dated 15.12.2022, issued by the Respondent No.4 dispensing with the services of the petitioner from 16.12.2022 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and amounts to circumventing the orders of this Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.8859 of 2015 and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Sweeper-cum Attender in 4th respondent corporation by setting aside the notice vide proceedings No.RC.No.A1/241/TRICOR/2022-23, dated 15.12.2022, forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass…”

Brief facts of the case:

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner succinctly is that the petitioner was joined as Sweeper in the office of the 4th respondent in the year 1989 on monthly wage of Rs.50/- initially and the same was enhanced from time to time. Thereafter the 4th respondent issued proceedings in R.C.No.TR/A1/396/04, dated -07-2004 by sanctioning the pay fixation attached to the Last Grade Service as the petitioner continuously working for more than 10 years. In fact, the 4th respondent has been paying petitioner’s provident fund contribution from the year 1992 onwards. Learned counsel submits that at the time of absorbing her services at the Last Grade Service, the 4th respondent also absorbed the services of one Sri K.T. Muthu Kumar in the post of Junior Inspector / Junior Assistant while sanctioning the pay attached to the said post. As per the said proceedings the petitioner is also entitled to draw salary attached to the post of Last Grade Service w.e.f., August, 2004. But the petitioner was not paid the salary attached to the Last Grade Service but a meager amount of Rs.6,700/- only per month was being paid to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8859/2015 and this Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass interim orders by sanctioning all increments attached to the Last Grade Service.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the claim of the petitioner is similar to one Sri K.T. Muthu Kumar, who is joined along with the petitioner but services of Sri K.T. Muthu Kumar was absorbed as Junior Assistant and sanctioned pay attached to the said post but the said benefit was not conferred to the petitioner even though she is entitled to draw the salary attached to the Last Grade Service w.e.f. August, 2004. Even though the petitioner submitted representations and requested for regularization as well as payment of salary attached to the Last Grade Service on par with Sri K.T. Muthu Kumar, the respondents did not consider the same but being paid a meager amount of Rs.6,700/- per month. He further asserted that having no other option the petitioner preferred W.P.No.8859/2015 o