HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.2354 OF 2023

ORDER:

Heard Sri R.Anurag, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, Sri T.P. Acharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, Sri V.V.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4

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

“….to call for records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 2^nd Respondent bearing No. P. Admn. A7/58 (1)/96, dated 19-11- 2022 and set aside the same as illegal, contrary to law and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and in consequence thereof, direct the Respondents to consider the claim of the Petitioner in terms of his initial appointment i.e., 05-11-1986 or completion of his 5 years of service in the year 1992 or from the date of regularization of other similarly situated persons in the year 1996 since the Petitioner is entitled for regularization of his service with immediate effect with all consequential benefits including fixation of minimum pension by issuing a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or Order or direction as this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Daily Wage Labor on 05.11.1986 in the ESCOM Godown at Rayaparthi and later transferred to the Civil Supplies Corporation in 1992 as a Sweeper-cum-Watchman. Though the petitioner rendered continuous service for over 36 years, his services were not regularized in a timely manner. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 20726 of 2010, which was disposed of by this Court on 29.12.2016 with a direction to the Respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for regularization. However, the Respondents failed to act, compelling the petitioner to file Contempt Case No.1801 of 2017. Thereafter, the petitioner’s services were regularized vide proceedings dated 17.11.2017, when he had only 4 years and 2 months of service left. Despite representations requesting regularization from either 1992 (on completion of five years of service) or from 1996 (when similarly situated persons were regularized), the Respondents rejected the petitioner’s claim vide proceedings dated 19.11.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:

A) The relevant portion of the impugned order of respondent No.2 vide No.P.Admn.A7/ 58(1)/ 96 dated

19.11.2022 is extracted hereunder:

“AND WHEREAS, after examining the issue with reference to material available on record Sri T.Yadagiri, Office Subordinate, DMO, Warangal, the petitioner is hereby informed that he is not entitled to be regularized either from 1992 (or) from 1996 as he did not fit into G.O.Ms. Nos.212 which was holding field for regularization at that point of time, and the only benefit could be granted to the petitioner is Umadevi's case as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court which was granted to the petitioner along with other similarly placed employees as one time measure and thus the petitioner cannot have any grievance with the impugned regularization proceedings dated: 17.11.2017.

In pursuance of the Hon'ble High Court orders, the representations of Sri T.Yadagiri, Office Subordinate, DMO, Warangal (U), dated: 16.02.2018, 16.02.2019, 27.07.2019 and 17.02.2020 are considered. He is not satisfying GO Ms No.212, Finance (PC-I I I ) Dept., dated 20.04.1994 (i.e., provision of 5 years of service as on 25.11.1993). But, however as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Smt Umadevi case he was regularized on 20.10.2017.

Therefore, his request to regularize services from his initial appointment in the year 1992 or from the date of regularization of other si