Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/22899/2017 of The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Annapureddi Bikshalu, on 31 December 2019
THE CHIEF JUSTICE J.K.MAHESHWARI & THE HON'BLE Ms JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI W.P.Nos.26458/2016 & 22899/2017 COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Ms Justice J.Uma Devi) Heard both sides. These two writ petitions arise out of a common order, dated 30.05.2016, passed in O.A.No.2513 of 2013, on
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.
Facts
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE J.K.MAHESHWARI & THE HON'BLE Ms JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI W.P.Nos.26458/2016 & 22899/2017
COMMON ORDER:(per the Hon’ble Ms Justice J.Uma Devi)
Heard both sides.
These two writ petitions arise out of a common order, dated 30.05.2016, passed in O.A.No.2513 of 2013, on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad.
W.P.No.26458 of 2016 is filed by the petitioner/workman seeking to modify the order of the Tribunal, dated 30.05.2016, in O.A.No.2513 of 2013, whereas W.P.No.22899 of 2016 is filed by the Government seeking to set aside or quash the said order of the Tribunal.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
The petitioner/workman states that his services were engaged initially as a daily wage worker in Government B.C.Boys Hostel, Narsaraopet from 12.03.1974, but no appointment order was issued to him by the authorities. He left the job on 12.09.1975 without informing the concerned authorities. After lapse of 17 years, the petitioner/workman filed I.D.No.496 of 1991 before the Labour Court, Guntur seeking to set aside his removal and to reinstate him into service. The Labour Court, vide orders dated 02.09.1997, without taking into consideration of the abnormal delay of 17 years in filing the Industrial Dispute, allowed the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the management had not complied with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and ordered for his reinstatement without back wages. Against the said order, the Government filed W.P.No.11723 of 1998 and the same was dismissed, vide orders, dated 10.06.2005. Pursuant to the order of the Labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated on daily wage basis from 19.12.2005 as a Kamati (Assistant to Cook) in BC Boys Hostel, Krosuru, Guntur District.
While so, the petitioner/workman filed O.A.No.8576 of 2008 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, seeking to regularize his services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, F&P Department, dated 22.04.1994 and the same was allowed vide orders dated 10.09.2009, directing the authorities concerned to consider the application made by the petitioner for regularization of his services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 and further directed to ascertain the age of the petitioner by sending him to Guntur District Medical Board for ascertaining his age. The Medical Board, vide letter dated 10.11.2009, gave its opinion that the age of the petitioner is about 55 years. Based on the said report, the District B.C.Welfare Officer, Guntur passed an order on 05.03.2010 holding that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief of regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994.
As the Government did not comply the order, dated 10.09.2009, in O.A.No.8576 of 2008, the petitioner filed contempt in C.A.No.123 of 2010 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. Meanwhile, the Government filed W.P.No.26227 of 2010 against the order, dated 10.09.2009, in O.A.No.8576 of 2008 and the same was dismissed vide orders dated 20.06.2011 on the ground that it was filed after a lapse of 13 months from the Order, dated 10.09.2009, and after filing of contempt case by the petitioner. In C.A.No.123 of 2010 the Government filed a Memo No.687/A1/2010-9, dated 01.02.2011, stating that the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.8576 of 2008 has been complied with, while rejecting the request made by the petitioner for regularization of his services.
Aggrieved by the action of the Government, vide Memo.No.687/A1/2010-9, dated 01.02.2011, the petitioner filed O.A.No.2513 of 2013 seeking to set aside the said memo and to regularize his services from the date of his employment. The Tribunal, having held that the contention that the petitioner is not having the qualification of reading and writing has not been raised earlier, allowed the O.A., however directed the concerned authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from date of filing of earlier O.A. i.e., from July, 2008 with all consequential benefits. Against which, both these writ petitions are filed.
The main contention of the petitioner is that he is entitled for regularization of his services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning Department, dated 22.04.1994. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a Judgment of the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. N.Venkaiah and others[1] and contended that the petitioner is entitled for regularization from the date of his initial appointment.
The facts of the said case and the facts of the present case are different. The said judgment is delivered as regards to the employees whose services were already regularized. The said judgment is delivered directing the authorities to reckon the services of the employees therein from the date of completion of five years in service, on or before 25.11.1993 for the purpose of pensionary benefits. In this case, the petitioner herein was not in service as on 25.11.1993. But the dispute he raised before the Labour Court vide I.D.No.496 of 1991 was pending.
According to the petitioner he entered into service as Kamati on daily wages from 12.03.1974 and left the service on 12.09.1975. Again, pursuant to the orders of the Labour Court, he reentered into service on 19.12.2005 as Kamati on daily wages and continued as such till 31.10.2014 on which he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation.
The conditions imposed in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 are as under:
1) The persons appointed should possess the qualifications prescribed as per rules in force as on the date from which his/her services have to be regularized. prescribed as per rules in force as on the date from which his/her services have to be regularized.
2) They should be within the age limits as on the date of appointment as NMR/Daily wage employee. appointment as NMR/Daily wage employee.
3) The rule of reservation wherever applicable will be followed and back-log will be set-off against future vacancies. back-log will be set-off against future vacancies.
4) Sponsoring of candidates from Employment Exchange is relaxed. relaxed.
5) Absorption shall be against clear vacancies of posts considered necessary to be continued as per work-load excluding the vacancies already notified to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission/District Selection Committee. necessary to be continued as per work-load excluding the vacancies already notified to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission/District Selection Committee.
6) In the case of Work charged Establishment, where there will be no clear vacancies, because of the fact that the expenditure on Work charged is at a fixed percentage of P.S.charges and as soon as the work is over, the services of workcharged establishment will have to be terminated, they shall be adjusted no clear vacancies, because of the fact that the expenditure on Work charged is at a fixed percentage of P.S.charges and as soon as the work is over, the services of workcharged establishment will have to be terminated, they shall be adjusted in the other departments, District Offices provided there are clear vacancies of last Grade Service.
As seen the material on record, as stated earlier, the petitioner was not in service as on 25.11.1993. He did not acquire any qualification of reading and writing. The post ‘kamati’ is not a regular post and it is a consolidated post, to be appointed on daily wage basis to assist the cook in B.C.Hostels. No appointment or termination letter is placed by the petitioner either before the Labour Court, Tribunal or before this court. Based on the attendance register, the Labour Court passed the award, though the petitioner approached the Labour Court after lapse of 17 years of his relinquishment of the work at B.C.Hostel. The petitioner was reinstated pursuant to the orders of the Labour Court on 19.12.2005 as a ‘kamati’ on daily wages and continued till 31.10.2014, i.e., till the date of his retirement.
The petitioner filed O.A.No.8576 of 2008 for regularization of his services from the date of his initial appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. As per the medical report, the petitioner was aged about 55 years. As per condition No.2 of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, the petitioner is not entitled for regularization of his services as he crossed the age of 50 years, and moreover, he was not in service as on 25.11.1993 Therefore, the Government rejected his request made for regularization of his services, vide proceedings Rc.No.A1/232/1991, dated 05.03.2010 and Memo No.687/A1/2010-9, dated 01.02.2011.
Aggrieved by the memo, dated 01.02.2011, the petitioner again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.2513 of 2013 and the Tribunal, vide orders dated 30.05.2016, considering the facts and the issue raised, and on taking note of the fact that the petitioner was not in service as on 25.11.1993, directed the authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner from July, 2008. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said order, and it does not need any interference.
For the foregoing discussion, we are not inclined to set aside or modify the order impugned, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, dated 30.05.2016, in O.A.No.2513 of 2013.
In the result, both the writ petitions filed by the petitioner as well as the Government are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
J.K.MAHESHWARI, CJ J.UMA DEVI,J
Date: 31.12.2019 Dsr