THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.43781 of 2016

ORDER

It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 passed Graduation and also Typewriting English and Telugu Higher Grade and also Diploma in Computer Applications, and he was originally appointed as Section Writer with effect from 14.04.1993 on a remuneration of Rs.12/- per day vide Memo dated 14.04.1993. He was initially appointed as Contract Labour from 01.12.1997 and deputed to work in the District Panchayat Office, Nizamabad, vide Memo dated 29.01.1998 and was orally directed to work as Telugu Typist, and he worked as such till 31.12.2015. Petitioner No.2 passed B.Sc, and also Typewriting English and Telugu Higher Grade and also DCA (Computer Certificate course) and appointed as Typist on contract basis under the control of respondents from 01.01.2001 and working as such till date. Petitioner No.3 passed B.Com and Typewriting Lower Grade and DCA (Computers) and was appointed as Computer Operator with effect from 01.01.2005 on contract basis and working as such. Petitioner No.4 passed Intermediate and PGDCA and appointed as Computer Operator on contract basis with effect from 01.01.2004 and continuing as such. It is their case that they completed more than ten years of service on contract basis, and there are several existing vacancies of Typists / Computer Operators available under the control of respondents, and the respondents extracted work from the petitioners and the petitioners received salaries directly from the Department. Petitioners salary on contract basis at Rs.2,000/- per month was enhanced from time to time and now they are being paid at Rs.12,000/- per month. Petitioners contend that they are entitled to regularization of services, and the Government vide GOMs.No.22 dated 13.08.2014 decided to constitute a Committee of Officers to examine the issue relating to regularization of services, and the Government issued GOMs.No.16, dated26.02.2016, mentioning clearly that regularization may be considered only in respect of eligible persons working as on 02.06.2014. It is alleged that petitioner Nos.1 and 3 were not allowed to continue in service while petitioner Nos.2 and 4 are still working. Petitioners contend that they are eligible as per GOMs.No.16 dated 26.02.2016, and they are rendering services for over a decade and a half, and now they are age-barred and the action of respondent authorities in not allowing petitioners 1 and 3 to continue in service and discharge their duties, is illegal. Petitioners rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, [12010 (9) SCC 247] and also on State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, [22006 (4) SCC 1], and contend that they are entitled to regularization. They further contend that the respondents are paying only Rs.12,000/- per month whereas they are entitled to Rs.15,000/- per month in terms of the order issued by Government in GOMs.No.14, Finance Department, dated

19.02.2016.

2. Heard Mr. Brahmadandi Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. R. Swarnalatha, learned counsel on record for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Services-II. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, would mainly contend that the petitioners are duly qualified and have been working in respective posts on contract basis for over a decade and they are eligible for regularization as per Umadevi (supra), and further they are eligible as per GOMs.No.16 dated 26.02.2016, and the respondents in spite of available vacancies are not regularizing the services of the petitioners.

4. Learned Government Pleader, on the basis of counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1, would submit that as per GO(P) No.112, Finance and Planning (FW.PC-III) Dept., dated 23.07.1997, the Government has taken a decision that services of persons who worked continuously as part time workers for a minimum of