THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

ORDER:

Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, more particularly, respondent No.3 in issuing the impugned order vide Lr.No.DE/OP/SRPT/JAO/ADM/D.No.2195/12 dated 16.10.2012, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had joined the services of respondent Corporation on 19.09.1989 as a Village Electricity Worker, and he had been working as such, until the respondents prevented him from discharging his duties in December, 1997. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for an interview on 08.02.1999, after which, he was once permitted to discharge his duties, by re-employing him in the same post of Village Electricity Officer from March, 2002. However, without assigning any reasons, the respondents once again orally terminated him on 01.08.2002. Thus, the petitioner approached the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, and filed I.D.No.31 of 2005, which was allowed vide award dated 24.10.2006, setting aside the oral termination order dated

01.08.2002, and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner as Village Electricity Worker, with continuity of service but not back wages and attendant benefits. Thereafter, in compliance with the award of the Labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated into service as a Junior Lineman on yearly contract basis, and he has been working as such since 30.06.2008, without any remarks. However, while the respondents regularized the services of the employees who have continuously worked for more than one year, in spite of availability of vacancies, the petitioner’s services were not regularized. As such, he was constrained to file W.P.No.8975 of 2012 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.07.2012, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.02.2012 and pass appropriate orders. However, the present impugned order dated 16.10.2012 has been passed, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Heard Sri K. Ram Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the services of the petitioner’s juniors, viz., Mr. M. Venkat Reddy, Mr. Ch. Ratna Sekhar and Mr. P. Lakshmaiah, who were also initially appointed as Village Electricity Workers and later worked as Junior Linemen on contract basis from 20.08.2002, were regularized w.e.f., 10.02.2005. However, the case of the petitioner was arbitrarily and illegally rejected by respondent No.3 on untenable and unsustainable grounds. It is contended that the respondents have shown a discriminatory treatment in the case of the petitioner, alleging that he was absent to duty at the time of the notification. However, it was the respondents who had illegally terminated the petitioner’s services on 01.08.2002, and the petitioner was pursuing the I.D. It is further submitted that the respondents considered the case of one similar placed candidate, Mr. Miryala Venkat Reddy, who was also unavailable on the date of publication of the notification in the local newspaper, and regularized his services in 2005. As such, the respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner too, for regularization.

5. It is further submitted that the petitioner had passed I.T.I. in Electrical Trade, and that although B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997 had been withdrawn in 2007, since his claim for regularization is prior to the said withdrawal, the petitioner is eligible for regularization, more so, with effect from 1997 itself. It is also submitted that even assuming the said B.P.Ms.No.36 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, he is still entitled for regularization of his services, since he has completed more than one year of service from the date of his appointment on