HON’BLE MRS JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.200 OF 2021

ORDER:

Heard Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for respondent No.1, Sri T.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri L.Dayakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“…to issue an order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in non regularization of the services of the petitioners as Linemen and Pump Operators in the 2nd Respondent Board as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, unlawful, unconstitutional, perverse, mockery and violative of Art.14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and against to the Para No.53 Uma Devi’s case (2006) 4 SCC 1), which is Constitutional Bench Judgment of an Apex Court and time to time upheld by an Apex Court in a Catena of Judgments of an Apex Court including the Nihal Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and others and its batch, which has been reported in AIR 2013 SC 3547 and this Hon’ble Court and Consequently, direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as Linemen and Pump Operators in the 2^nd respondent Board with all consequential benefits and pass...”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are working as Line Man and Pump Operators for the past one and half decade to till date as full time employees in respondent No.2-Organization. The respondent No.2 has the power to appoint the employees in the Board under Section 113 of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1989. The respondent No.2 had issued a paper notification in Telugu Daily Newspaper of Eenadu for want of full time employees through contractor and on contract basis. As such, the petitioners have attended for an interview and joined in the respondent No.2-Organization for the Line Man and Pump Operator posts and they are discharging their duties with utmost satisfaction. Although the petitioners have completed 10 years of service, the respondents have not regularized their services. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD.

(A) The averments of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, in particular, paras 8, 9 and 12 are extracted hereunder:

“8. As regards the averments in para-4, I submit that the HMWS&SB denies that the petitioners were appointed through an employment notification and contends that there is no selection process conducted while engaging them and it was only a need-based intake. I t is totally false and baseless allegations. The Board does not have sanctioned posts with designations like Lineman and Pump Operators in the field level operations. The Board has engaged the outsourcing personnel through Agency only and every year changing the Agency by calling for tenders. The allegation that the Board is following unconstitutional methods, is denied in toto.

9. Regarding the averments in paras 5 to 9, it is humbly submitted that, there is no dispute that all the petitioners are engaged by Board on outsourcing basis since 2007 onwards and their wages were being paid through various outsourcing Agencies but not by Board directly. It is the outsourcing Agencies which are responsible for payment of wages to the man power and not the Board. The procedure and source of appointment of outsourced employees is different from other modes of employment on regular basis and that the petitioners were engaged through different Agencies and selection procedure is also different for them.

12. Regarding the contentions in paras 17 & 18, I humbly submit that employment/service in the Board is governed by various Service Rules, instructions of the Government and Government orders as per law. The Rule of Rese