A long tenure of temporary service without proper classification allows employees to seek regularization and equitable benefits, reinforcing the obligation of the state as a constitutional employer.

ORDER:

SUREPALLI NANDA, J.

Heard Sri CH.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I I appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 & 4.

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

“…to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent herein to convert the full contingent appointment of petitioner made temporarily on compassionate grounds by 4th Respondent in Proc No.E/125/93 dated 30/08/1993 by regularizing his services in last grade post as per G.O.Ms.No.687 (GAD), dated 03/10/1977 and G.O.Ms.No. 661(GAD), dated 23/10/2008 with effect from 01/09/1993 to till date with all consequential monetary benefits including seniority and arrears of pay in the last grade post for 27 long years from time to time with 100 % compensation by applying principle laid by Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs Avtar Chand in Civil Appeal No. 3416-3445 of 2010, dt 19/ 02/2019 under Article-141 of our constitution by this Honourable court for wrongly treating the Petitioner as part time employee contrary to appointment order of temporary sweeper by wrongly paying part time wages to the Petitioner in violation of Minimum Wages Act 1948 and Equal Remuneration Act 1976 by subjecting the petitioner to exploitative enslavement due to his helpless conditions of poverty, poor, social, financial, political background in denying his legitimate wages from 27 long years and also award costs of the case and pass…”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placing reliance on the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition pertaining in particular, to the services rendered by petitioner with the respondents herein for more than a decade contends that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.

PERUSED THE RECORD:-

DISCUSSI ON AND CONCLUSION:-

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the subject issue in the present case is squarely covered by the order of this Court, dated 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2007 reported in 2011(1) ALD, Page 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2010, dated 10.06.2013 and also order, dated 19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.27217 of 2017 reported in 2018 (2) ALD Page 282 and also the order, dated 21.04.2020 passed in W.P.No.23057 of 2019 reported in 2020(4) ALD Page 379.

5. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 submits that the grievance of the petitioner as put-forth in the present Writ Petition had not been addressed to the respondents herein as on date and therefore, the petitioner cannot complain inaction on the part of respondents herein in considering the grievance of the petitioner and hence, the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Wit petition cannot be granted and no Mandamus can be issued against the respondents hereunder as sought for and the petitioner may be directed to put-forth the petitioner’s grievance as put- forth in the present Writ Petition by way of a detailed representation to the respondents herein and upon receipt of the said representation, the respondents would consider the same in accordance to law, within a reasonable period.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute the said submission made by the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3.

7. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) in Prem Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh and others , at para 36 held as under:

“36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30- 40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, thei