K. Ramakrishna Reddy v. The Unon of lndia

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or wriI more particularly one in the nature of writ of lvlandamus declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioner for regularrzation by issuing the proceedings dated 04 09.2013 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set asrde the same and regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdav t filr:cl rn su[,port of the petition, thr: High Court may be pleased to direct the responrlents to pay thc minrmum trmc: scale attached to the post of petitioner rn rvhich he is \vorkrng rn pursLrance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Purrlab VS jagrth S ngh and ( ther reported in AlR 2016 SC Page 2176. pendrng d spcsal oF Vy'rit Petrtron Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. G- RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI Y. JHANSI (cENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&3: Ms. K. UDAYA SRI The Court made the following: ORDER 1 ,t'. wp 62s4 7Ot9 NBt(,l THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE NAGESH BIIEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.6254 ot 2Ol9 ORDER: fhe petitioner. rvas appointed initially as a Casual Clprk in the resporrdent cornpany on 02.09. 1987 at a daily wage of Rs. 24. It is his case thar fi'om the start, hc was not paid a salary equal to that ol sirnilarly situated employees, which led hirn to llle w.p.No.7i36 of 1993 seeking regularizarion, and the writ pctition uas disposcd of in tenns of a similar case in w.p.No.g960 of 1987 dated I 5.09. 1987 based on a scttlement agreement between the management and thc union. This court, by order dated 02.06.1993. tbund the settlemcnt binding and directcd [he respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's case tbr regularization. Subsequently, vide letter dated I I . 12. I 996. the respondent informed the petitioner that his seryices would be regularized in the luture and placed hirr at Serial No.15 on the seniority list. The petitioner, howcver, contends that this [ist rvas unf'air, as individuals appointed as late as 1990 were show, as seniors. 1'his prornpted hirn to file a contempt case, which was closed on 10.09. 1997 with a direction for the respondent to consider the case olthe petitioner ri herr vacrrrrcies arose. l.l Following a rcpresentation made by the petitioner on 02.10. 199g to fill a vacancy, the respondent, instead of regularizing his serwice, began to disengage him occasionally w'ithout written orders or reason, curminating in his final disengagemenr on 21.01.1998. The petitioner states that this action violated the orders of rhis Court in w.p.No.733 6 of 1993. He challenged this termination by filing W.P.No.7l l of 1999, which was ultimately allowed by this Court on 06.09.20 12. Cour1, by referring to the judgment of Hon,ble Supreme Courl in State of Karnataka vs M.L. Kesarir and noting the -l'his 12010 (9) scc 247 2 .-E wp 6254-2019 NBK, ] petitioner's scrvicc of morc than 25 years, directed the respondents to consider his case lor regularization u,ithin fbur rnonths. 'lhe respondent's filed an appeal. i.e.. W.A.\o.c)2'l of l0I i. against the Order passed in W P'No 7I I of 1g99; and the \\rit appeal rras ciismissed by the tlou'blc DiVision Bcnch of this Courl on 19.07.20 13. \tr'hen the rcspotrdent lailccl to acl ou the regularisation olthe petitiorrer, the petitioncr lllcd a contcrrpt caqe, c.(1.No.498 of 2014 tbr contempt. 1-l-rc respondent. alicr reccir irlg the contetnpt notice, issued a letter clated 18.12.20 13, intbnning ttre pctitioneI thar his casc tbr legula|isation had -fhc contcmpt case was been re.jected by an ordcr- dated 0:1.09.10 li sLrbsequently closcd on 16.11.1018. giving thc pc'titioner Libcrty to challenge the rejection order date(l 04.()9.2013.

1.2 The petitiorrer conte nds thal tlie reiection order dated 04'09 2013' r.ejecting his regularisation ferlllest rvas bercli of atry rcasons for such decision. The petitioner ltrther allegcs a I iolation of the seniority principle, pointing out that several juniors tramelv V. L.[na Mahcsl-rw-a Reddy, Satyavathi, D' Swamy., T. Anand. and Dcvaki Llai ri'l'ro joifled the r-espotrdent rnuch later than hirn, had their scn,iccs regularized cluring 1990-92. He also states that other .iuniors who filed W.P.No. t 766 of 1999 had their services regularized with elfect fiofir their initial appointments. Despitc the petitioner, who is now working as a Data Entry Opcrator with a current monthll' salary of Rs. 9,000 and with service from I 987 to the present date $'ithout any'break, being one of the "senior most employees", his case relnains unregularized.

1.3 He therefore challenges the respondent's action in issuing the impugned rejection orcler dated 04.09.2013 as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Goven.rment lluidelines in Office Memorandum dated 6.6 -2002 conceming the regularization of casual labout'and also contrary to thc law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in M.L. Kesari (suprct) . 3 N8K,I -

2. Heard Ms. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the petitioner; and leamed counsel tbr rcspondent No.2-HM'f . I'eruscd the record. Leamed counsel tor the pctitioner, making subtnissions in linc rvith the

3. writ allldavit. essentiall\ contends tl-rat the pctitioner services have not been regularised in spite ol rcndeling continuous and unblernishcd ser-vice since his initial appointrnent on 01.09. 1987. and ir.r spite of the specific directions olthis Court in W.P.No.7336 ol I99-l ancl thc subscquent order iu W.P.No.7ll ol 1999 disposed olon 06.09.20 12. Ile contcnds that the irnpugned rejection order dated 04.09.20 l3 is a non-speaking order devoid of any reasoning. [t is also contended that the respondcnt has acted in gross violation of the petitioner's fundamental riglrts by illegatly lavoring juniols, such as V. lJrna Maheshwar Reddy and others appointed in 1990. by regularizing their services while wilfully leaving the petitioncr, a scnior-tnost employee, thereby depriving him of both status and the minirnum time scalc of pay attached to the post he has occupied for or er -i0 years.

4. No countcr alfida'".it has bcen filcd despite several adjoumments. However, leamed counscl lbr lespondent No.2 would essentially rebut the claim of the petitioner contending that the petitioner's case lor regularization was legitirnately rejected, as fbrmally communicated in their proceedings dated 04.09.2013 - lt is also contended tliat lhere is no illegality in regularisation of juniors-namely V.Uma Maheshrvar Reddy, Satyavathi, D.Swamy, T.Anand, and Devaki Bai, who joined the service in 1990-regularized during 1990-92.

5. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that, admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a Casual clerk on 02.09.1987 in the rcspondcnt No.2-cornpany and rendered over three decades ofunintem:pted service in that post. T'he respondents' only delense is 4 wp-6254 2019 that the rr'iection olthe petitione r's re-uularization vide order dated 04.09.20 Il was valicl and that thc regular-ization ol'his-juniors ivas.iustilred. Ilorvever. the responclcnts hai,c lnilcd to rcbut tlre pctitioncr's sirr-cilic. docurrrentcd allesation tirlt indir iduals suclr rs \'.Llrna Nlahcshuar Ileddr. Srttl,ar.athi. p.$r.r'arnl .'l'.Anand. ancl Dcrakr Ilar. tho ivcr.e agrpoinlcd in 1990 (i.e., later. than the pelitionel ), uerc rer:ularizetl durins 1990-92.

5. I I his Court. in \\'.1).No.7 i I ol' 1999 datcd 06.09.10 12. spccilicalll,. dircctcd the rcspondcnts to corrsidcr rhc pctitioncr fbr rccularisation in tcrnrs ol'the.judgrncntin M.[-. Kesuri (.suytt.tt). Tl'rc appeal W A.l.,-o.927 ol20l-i filcd bv the rcspondent authoritics aqainst rhr- ordcr in W.P.\o.7l l ol'1999 sas dismissecl br the I)ivision []cnch on I9.07.201i. whcn rhc- petirione-r lilccl a contcnrpt casc against rurn-cornpliance of tl're ordcrs in \\'.P.No.7l I of t999, the respondents passcd the impugnccl rc. jcction oldcr dated 04.09.10 13.

6. In this connection, it is relcvanr to retl'r to thc judglnent ol' Hon'btc Suprernc ('ourt in Jaggo vs. Itnion of [ndi:rr. u hercin thc ape x Cour1. l-rv relimirrg 10 State of Karnataka vs. Unradevir, hcld as lbllorvs: )6. llthile the.fudgntettt itt (lnutlt,vi (strltrut sotr?ht to ttrrtuil the ltnttlice oJ' batkdoor at rics ttntl en-:ure a1t1xtittlments adlrcrecl to conslilutionul principle.s. is r.agrcttuble t)rtt its prin(rplc.s art oJtcn trtis interpreted or nti,sappliad to dert..,. legitittate claints r tl' lotrt-.si n'ing L:mplottecs- This judgmcnt uimetl to distinguislt letv)ean " illegul antl '' irt t'gttlur " oppointments. It ctrtt'toricallt. ttctd that cmltktt.ecs in irregulttr appoinlment.\, y'lut y,u.r, (ngege(l rrt dul1,. sunclionetl Jtttsts ttnd hod served continuoush, .fbr ntore thatt ten .tcurs. .shottld he considered for regularization as o one-tinrc measure. Howetter, tlrc laudable intent o1 the judgment is being subvcrted when institutions relt, on its dicta to indiscr im inate lv reject tha c lu ims of entployee:, et,en in coses where their oppoinlments ere not illegal, hut mcrelt. luck adhcren<:e to procedurul Jil.molitie ,s. (iovt,rnrncnt deporlntent.\ o.fien cite the jttdgmett in fhnadevi (ster(l) to tu gue thot no testt'cl rigltt to ,2024 tNSC 1034 r (2006) 4 SCC 1 5 wp 6254 2Ol9 N0t( l regularization exists Jbr temporarv emplq)ees, overlooking the judgment's explicit ocknowleclgmenl of cases u,here regulurizotion i.t appropriate. Tltt.s selcclive upplication disbrls llrc judgnrcnl's spit-it and purposc. e.ffcctitely v'euponizing it ugainsl L'tnplo)"ees xln lttve rcndere(l indispetN(hle se.nriL'es over decudes. 27. In light o.f lha.\e considerotions, in our opiui|u. it is intperalive.for governnent dep(trtm(,nls lo lcud bt eratttple irt providittg.fair and stable emplot,tnt,nt Enaatiug v,orkers on lrnlporurt' basis .fttr extended pcriods. t'.tpet iall.r wl'ten their role s are inlcgral to tlrc organizot irnt'.s Jirnttitttting, ttot only (nlrdvan(.\ inlcrnatiorrul labour stundards but al.so L'rposes the orgonizulion ltt legal chrtllertges and undermines emTtlovec ntorult' Bt'ett.sttring.l'oir crnplrtttmenl practices, governntl inslitutions cutr ratluc't' llrc hLtt'tlL'n of' trnnecessa4' liligation, promote .job se curitr'. untl uplnkl rha pritrciplcs ef.iuslit'c and.fairne.r.s thut lher urc nrcu)tl lo cntholv Tltis ttltltt oaclt aligns ttith inlernational sktntlords urul sets a positive pratrtlcttl for tlrc privdte seclor to [ollou. thcrebt' conlrihuling lo llte overoll bcfierment o.[ labour praclices in tlrc counllr'

7. ndmittedl). the pctitioncr u as appointe d in thc I car I 987 as a Casual Clerk. and admittcdly he had perlbnned the (lutics lirr or er threo dccatles without any adverse remark. Further. it is borne out b],'thc rccord that thc.iuniors of the pctitioner who were appointed in 1990. i.e., later than the appointnrcnt ot'thc petitionor, have -l'herc is no plausiblc reason fbr not regularising the serviees ofthe pctitioner irhetr his.jtrniors lr,cre considcrcd lilr regularisation. except been regularised during 1992. stating that the petitioncr's case has bcott cortsidcred and re'icclcd.

7.1 Admittodl)'. the potitionor has not been paid cven the rninirnum of the time-scale of pay attachcd to his post. rvhile his .iuniors were rcgularised and were granted the pay pertaining lo thcir rcspcctivc 3:radcs. F urthennore. there is no valid reason for rejecting the case of the pctitioncr lirr regularisation. r'ide the impugned rejection order dated 04.09.20 13, ln that vics' of thc tnalter. this Court has no hesitation to hold that the irnpugncd rejection order dated 04.09-2013 is an empty formatity, bereft of reasoning, and illegal, and is apparently passed for the sake of passing an order to avoid contelrpt proceedings. Kccping in vierv the judgrnent of the Hon'ble Supreme ('ourt in L)nutdevi tsupra),'and ,laggo t.\ttpra). and also considering the merits of thc casc, the rvrit petition deserves to bc allowed. ( I 6 wp 625r 2ar9 - 8. Accordi.gll . thc * rit pctitio, is allo* cd. arrd thc impuened re.icction or-tlcr dated 0-1.092() 1-l is sct .rside. Thc ?' rcsponderr is dirccted to pass orders ol regtrlarisa t iolt ol'tltc pctitiotter riithin luo rreeks lionr the da[e o1'rcceipt 9l'a cppr of this ordcr. rcgularisinq hinr liom thc date ol'his iniriirl appointrncnt i.c.. 01.()9.1987 J hr l.rctitioLtcr shull rrot clailn rctr(isl)cctive rnorrctun bencfits rrrr accounl ol this ordcr. horr:vcr. this ('otrrt dccrns it appropriete [rr g13111 crrn\c(luentiJl tttttitttrltl bcttclits to tht pt'titioncr liorr-r 01.09.1987. irs applicablc lionr lirlc t6 tirne. kecpinr: rn ries thc athrittccl tacl that thc .juniors ol' thc pctilioler har,c hcen regularrscrl \ar back irr ttrc 1,'car 1992 and thc1, hrrvc cnjoled thc scn ice hencljts throuql111111 thr-ir scrvicc. and thc petitioncr \\ as put 1o rrn(lrre <lisldvarrtaqc hv rlcnr i1!.1 resularisation alicr rrvailirrg his scrvices lbr or,er thrce clccadcs rnd dcspitc t5c 6rdcr: passcd lrr this ('ourr in w.l'.No.7l I ol' 1999 datccl ()6 ()9.20 ll. rrs stootj ulllrnretl hr thc I)ir ision Ilcnch ol rhis court in \L A-No ()17 ol' 2()l-l darcd I().()7.201-1. 'fhcri:lirre. tlte 2"'l rcspottdcnt shall include thc notional hcl.: llts us clirtclcd aSor e i1 lhe reetrlarisation <trtlcrs that hc u,ould pass in corrpliancc ol'this ortlcr. ti.l ILrrthcrrrorc. this rvrit pctition is olthc'ear 2()t9. and thc pctiti.rrcr rvas 59 r'ears old bv thc datc of filing the s,rit pctition. \\/e arc nou irr 201j. I)criti6lcr nrtrst lllrr c lrtteiIcd thc rL,cc o1- srLperannuation b] rro$. l he l,.r rcsporrdcnt slrall thcrc'lbrc calculrtte the tlotional hencflts as directcd above. and appropriulelr lix lris par. anrl acc,rtlin.'qlY disburse thc pcnsion and rctireurcnt hcnetits. as applicahlc. u ithrn ir pcriod ol'thrcc tnonths lionr the datc ol'r.ecciltt of a copr ol'this ortlcr. \o costs. Nlisccllancous petiLiorrs pcnding- il'anr'. shall stand closed. SD/.B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR <as SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, w l.TheSecretary,Unionoflndia'N/inistryofHeavylndustrresandPublic E;i"rp^;;, ft.bom No a07, Biocr No.i+, Lodhi Road cGo Complex' NEW DELHI 110 003 Z if-l" ftfunog"r, HVf , Macnine Tools, (A Government of India Undertaking ) , - rrlnrulr PrSoa 60-(r 10, C.l.E., Gandhi Nagar, Balanagar. Hyderabad-500 037 g bne CC to "SRl G RAVI MOHAN Advocate tqEUC] ; 5;; 6c i" sni v JHANSI (cENTRAL GoVERNlviENr couNSEL) [oPUC] 5 One CC to trrls. K. UDAYA SRl, Advocate LOPUCI 6. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:01 10512025 l I \ ORDER WP.No.6254 of 2019 ? o (J I HE SIA 18 HAfl Mlf * SPATCT I -) * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o2 c) I b