Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 23419
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
PULLA KARTHIK, J
S. Venkateshwarlu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP/1957/2024
The court affirmed the principle of equal treatment in employment, directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' regularization based on established legal precedents.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Petitioners sought regularization of services after fulfilling eligibility criteria as per Supreme Court guidelines - Petitioners engaged as daily wage employees since 1991, seeking equal treatment as similarly situated individuals - Respondents directed to consider representation for regularization based on prior rulings. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Legal Principles - The principle of equal treatment in public service employment and the necessity of following established guidelines for regularization were emphasized. (Paras 3-4)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, employed as daily wage workers since the early 1990s, claimed eligibility for regularization under guidelines established by the Supreme Court, citing similar cases where regularization was granted. (Para 3)
Findings of Court:
The court directed that the petitioners submit a representation for regularization, which the respondents must consider in light of existing legal precedents. (Para 6)
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners were entitled to regularization and if the respondents' actions were arbitrary and discriminatory. (Paras 1-4)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners must be given an opportunity to present their case for regularization, reinforcing the principle that similar cases should be treated equally. (Para 6)
Result: Writ Petition disposed of with directions for consideration of representation.
ORDER :
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:
“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the entire action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners in respective posts in which they are working even though they are fully eligible, satisfied criteria laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 53 of its judgment in 2006 (4) SCC (1), despite of their repeated representations/requests is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, colourable exercise of power and contrary to the above judgment reported in 2018 (2) ALD 282 DB r/w recent judgment dated 10.10.2022 in W.P.No.14020 of 2013 and batch while regularizing the similarly situated persons is as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of all principle of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith consider regularization of services of petitioners in respective posts in which the petitioners are working in terms of criteria laid down Para 53 of judgment in 2006 (4) SCC (1) which was considered in Division Bench of this Court reported 2018 (2) ALD 282 DB r/w recent judgment dated 10.10.2022 in W.P.Nos.14020 of 2013 &batch w.e.f. the day on which they completed 5 years of service with all consequential benefits…”
2. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Kata, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner were engaged as daily wage/consolidated employees by the respondents with effect from 01.07.1991, 08.11.1991, 02.05.1995 and 11.05.1994 respectively. Since then they are discharging their duties regularly on par with regular employees against the vacancies available in the respective offices. Learned counsel further submits that duly taking into consideration the long length of service rendered by the petitioners, the then Chairman, DRDA, Nalgonda, issued proceedings No.A1/82/2003, dated 01.11.2008 extending the benefit of Minimum Time Scale of Pay attached to the post hold by them with effect from 01.09.2008. Apart from the above, the petitioners were also extended the benefit of Revised Pay Scales in the years 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020, except the benefit of regularization of their service. Learned counsel further submits that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, wherein it has decided that the services of the persons, who have completed a continuous and minimum period of five years of service and has been continuing, shall be regularized. Pursuant to the said G.O., the Governing body vide proceedings, dated 13.11.1995, also resolved that the services of the employees, who have completed five years of service in the agency, shall be regularized.
Learned counsel further submits that in case of one Smt.G.Amruthamma, employee of DRDA, respondent No.2 issued Memo No.4326/MU.V(1) 2023, dated 25.07.2003 regularizing her services and when it comes to the petitioners, the respondents have not considered their case for regularization though they are seniors to said Amruthamma.
4. Learned counsel also submits that when similar issue fell for consideration before the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in U.V.S.R. Prasad and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Prl.Secretary Municipal Administration & Urban Development Secretariat, Velgapudi, Guntur District [W.P.No.27217 of 2017, dated 19.09.2017], the High Court allowed the writ petition with a direction to the respondents therein to consider regularization of the services of the petitioners therein against the existing vacancies of Work Inspectors and appoint them subject to their satisfying the criteria laid down in para No.53 of the Judgment in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi,
