WP/9827/2000 of Pillarisetti Venkata Satish Vs Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam on 30 December 2013

ORDER:

The petitioners seek for a Writ of Mandamus toregularize the services of the petitioners from the datethey completed five years of service and to give notionalseniority and other benefits to the petitioners.

2. The petitioners were engaged by therespondent-Devasthanam from 01.07.1987 according tothe petitioners to pack prasadam of Lord Veera VenkataSatyanarayana Swamy. They further claim that they havebeen in continuous service even today.

The petitioners submitted that they were initially paidwages at the rate of Rs.18/- per day. The remunerationwas reassessed from 1996 at the rate of Rs.0.04 paise per each packet of Prasadam. The remuneration wasenhanced to Rs.0.05 paise per packet from October, 1998onwards. The respondent-Devasthanam has the practiceof regularizing NMR workers after completion of five yearsservice and that the same has become a policy decisionof the Commissioner of Endowments. It is contended bythe petitioners that the Commissioner of Endowmentsissued directions on 11.06.1993 to the executive officersof the Devasthanam to utilize the services of NMRworkers. They also claimed that the High Court passedorders in W.P.No.13450 of 1991 and 13592 of 1991 and25740 of 1998 directing the respondent herein to considergrant of scale of pay and regularize the services of the writpetitioners therein. The petitioners, therefore, claim thattheir services be regularized.

3. The respondent denied that the respondentengaged the petitioners for packing Prasadam. The petitioners were work-charged employees whoseservices were engaged by the respondent-Devasthanamoccasionally as and when their services were needed. In 1996, the Trust Board resolved to engage workers oncontract basis for packing Prasadam. Consequently,workers were employed on contract basis on aremuneration of Rs.0.04 paise per packet initially andRs.0.05 paise per packet subsequently. The respondentcontended that the work done by Bhotadi (Prasadam)

Section was done on piece-wise method and the personsin the section were not even NMRs or daily ratedemployees engaged by the Devasthanam. Where thepetitioners were not daily wage labourers of theDevasthanam, their services cannot be regularizedaccording to the respondent-Devasthanam.

4. The respondent filed additional counter contending that the petitioners were not appointed by anyregular employment, so much so, the question ofregularizing their services does not arise.

5. It has not been contended by the petitionersthat the petitioners were selected by any process ofselection and were appointed in the Prasadam PackingSection. One of the fundamental conditions ofG.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 is that the casual/dailyemployee must have been selected on regular basis.Further, there should be availability of vacancies forabsorbing such employees as regular employees. It hasnot been whispered by the petitioners that vacancies areavailable to absorb the petitioners by way ofregularization.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for thepetitioners that the petitioners have been working eversince on 01.07.1987 and once they completed five yearsof service, they ought to have been regularized in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212. There is no dispute that the petitionershave been working since 01.07.1987. However, it is thecontention of the respondent-Devasthanam that thepetitioners were never the employees of theDevasthanam and that the petitioners were neverselected in the regular selection process. They alsocontend that there are no vacancies to appoint thepetitioners by way of regularization.

7. None of the ingredients envisaged byG.O.Ms.No.212 are applicable to the case of thepetitioners. The petitioners, therefore, cannot seek forregularization of their services. The writ petition ismisconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition,shall stand closed.

____________________

Dr. K.G. Shankar, J.

Date: 30.12.2013Isn