Telangana High Court
WP/161/2004 of Pangi Rama Rao, s/o late Palsu, Vs The Project Officer, ITDA, Paderu, on 30 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 161 of 2004 Between: 1 Pangi Rama Rao, s/o late Palsu, Working at TWAUPS, as a Cook and
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
WRIT PETITION NO : 161 of 2004
Between:
1 Pangi Rama Rao, s/o late Palsu,
Working at TWAUPS, as a Cook and Kamati, Paderu, Paderu Mandal, Visakhapatnam District 2 Kaverala Matchanna, s/o late Bojju Dora, Working at TWAH School, as a Cook and Kamati, Pedaguda village of Muchigiput Mandal, Visakhapatnam District 3 Pattala Balanna, s/o late Pandanna, Working at TWUPA School, as a Cook and Kamati, Paderu, Paderu Mandal, Visakhapatnam District 4 Bakuri Rajulamma, W/o late Narsharaju Working at TWAUP School, as a Cook and Kamati, Paderu, Paderu Mandal, Visakhapatnam District 5 Setty Kasulamma, w/o late Narayana, Working at TWAUPS School, as a Cook and Kamati, Paderu, Paderu Mandal, Visakhapatnam District
AND
..... PETITIONERS
1 The Project Officer, ITDA, Paderu, Visakhapatnam District 2 The District Tribal Welfare Officer, Paderu, Visakhapatnam District.
3 The Collector, Visakhapatnam, Chairman ITDA,
4 The Commissioner Tribal Welfare,
Samkshema Bhavan, Masab Tank,
Hyderabad
5 A.P.Tribal Welfare Ashram & Residential Educational Institutions
Society, rep by its Member Secretary,
IInd Floor, Telugu and Sankshema Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ ofmandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not following the senioritybased upon the date of initial appointment while absorbing and regularising theservice of daily wage workers working in Tribal Welfare Hostels and AshramSchools, Visakhapatnam district as unconstitutional, illegal and consequently directthe respondents to follow the seniority as per the list prepared by District TribalWelfare Officer after declaring that the daily wage labourers including the petitionersin Tribal Welfare Hostels, Ashram Schools are eligible to be regularized based uponthe seniority list only and direct the respondents to absorb and regularize thepetitioners in the posts they are working Counsel for the Petitioners :MR.K.S.MURTHY
Counsel for the Respondents No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE
And
CONTEMPT CASE NO.1132 OF 2004
INW.P.M.P.No.233 of 2004INW.P.No. 161 of 2004
Between:
1 Pangi Rama Rao, s/o late Palsu,
Working at TWAUPS, as a Cook and Kamati,Paderu, Paderu Mandal, Visakhapatnam District … Petitioner
And
1 Rizvi, S/o. Not known to the petitioner, The Project Officer, ITDA, Paderu, Visakhapatnam District 2 M.A. Rasheed, S/o. Not known to the petitioner, District Tribal Welfare Officer, Paderu, Visakhapatnam District.
3 Praveen Prakash,
S/o. Not known to the petitioner,
The Collector, Visakhapatnam, Chairman ITDA,
4 Manmohansingh,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
The Commissioner Tribal Welfare,
Samkshema Bhavan, Masab Tank,
Hyderabad
5 A.P.Tribal Welfare Ashram & Residential Educational Institutions
Society, rep by its Member Secretary,
IInd Floor, Telugu and Sankshema Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad Hyderabad … Respondents Application under Section 10 to 12, 14, 15 and 16 of Act 70 of 1971 to punish therespondents for Contempt of Court for willfully disobedience of this Hon’ble CourtOrder dated 06-01-2004 in WPMP No.233/2004 in W.P.No. 161/2004 passed byHon’ble Justice V.V.Ramulu under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act andpass such other order as proper and deemed fit in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. K.S.Murthy
Counsel for the respondents: G.P.for Social Welfare The Court at the stage of admission made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER:
Heard both sides.
Since both the cases viz., Writ Petition No.161 of 2004 and Contempt CaseC.C.No.1132 of 2004 are connected, they have been taken up together for disposal.
In the writ petition, the petitioners, who claimed to be working as Cook and Kamati, seek a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in notfollowing the seniority based upon the date of initial appointment, while absorbingand regularising the service of the daily wage workers working in Tribal WelfareHostels and Ashram Schools, Visakhapatnam district, as unconstitutional, illegaland further for a direction to follow the seniority as per the list prepared by the DistrictTribal Welfare Officer.
The case of the petitioners in brief is that they have joined in service on variousdates as mentioned in their affidavits and they will be entitled for regularization ofservices as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994. Further it is also their case thatwhile regularization, the respondents have not followed the seniority in accordancewith the date of appointment and also the service, which they have put up and also,the respondents have taken the recourse of pick and choose policy in selecting thecandidates for regularization. Hence the writ petition.
In the writ petition, this Court has granted interim direction in W.P.M.P.No. 233 of2004 dated 06-01-2004, to continue the services of the petitioners, in which theywere working, on par with the regular workers. As the same is not complied with andno salaries have been paid, the petitioners have filed the present contempt caseC.C.No.1132 of 2004.
Contesting the claim of the petitioners, the case of the respondents is that havingregard to the fact that G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994, as sought to be relied onby the petitioners, is no longer in force and therefore, they cannot make any claimbased on the said G.O. Further, for other reasons as shown, they are not entitled forregularization.
Considering the submissions made and also on perusal of the material, the onlyquestion that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioners are entitled toclaim for regularization either in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22-04-1994, or by any othersubsequent proceedings issued by the State Government.
There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners have been working in theTribal Welfare Hostel in the said posts and there is no complaint against themwhatsoever. Further, there is also no dispute, that the respondents have taken up theproceedings for regularization of services and some of them have already beenregularized, whereas, the case of the petitioners is remained unconsidered. Thecomplaint of the petitioners is that no proper seniority has been followed while regularizing their services and it is only on the whims and fancies of therespondents, the employees are being selected for the purpose of regularization.Further, it is also their case that as to why the petitioners’ case remainedunconsidered.
Admittedly the petitioners are quite seniors to the persons who have beenregularized. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners also submits that theaforesaid G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22-04-1994, has also undergone amendment byfresh proceedings issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.231 dated 16-10-1998,extending the period. In view of the same, the petitioners’ case squarely falls wellwithin the period, as contemplated therein, therefore, there is no justification fordenial of their regularization. In regard to the said aforesaid amendment inG.O.Ms.No.231, dated 16-10-1998, there is no denial or any other explanationforthcoming on behalf of the respondents herein.
In the circumstances, it has to be held that under both the G.O.Ms.No.212dated 22-04-1994, and also the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.231 dated 16-10-1998,petitioners case squarely falls within the parameters for the purpose of consideringtheir case for regularization. Further, there being no such denial for theregularization to some of the employees who have been juniors to the petitioners, itcannot be said that such an inaction is valid. Therefore, it is necessary for therespondents to follow the seniority list while considering the regularization.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents herein, toregularize the services of the petitioners following the seniority of similarly placedemployees, and the petitioners shall be continued in service and they shall be paidregular salaries to which they are entitled to under law, within a period of eightweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Having regard to the final orders passed in the writ petition, no orders are necessaryin the contempt case and accordingly, the contempt case is closed.
___________________
B. PRAKASH RAO, J.
Dt: 30-12-2004
Rns/ka.
1 The Project Officer, ITDA, Paderu, Visakhapatnam District 2 The District Tribal Welfare Officer, Paderu, Visakhapatnam District. Visakhapatnam District.
3 The Collector, Visakhapatnam, Chairman ITDA,
4 The Commissioner Tribal Welfare,
Samkshema Bhavan, Masab Tank,
Hyderabad
5 A.P.Tribal Welfare Ashram & Residential Educational Institutions
Society, rep by its Member Secretary, IInd Floor, Telugu and Sankshema Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad IInd Floor, Telugu and Sankshema Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 6 Two CCs to G.P.for Social Welfare, High Court Buildings, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
7 Two CD copies