The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS to declare the action of respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services as PWS FitterMaterman is illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petltioner in terms of the G O'Ms'No'212 daled 2210411994 by following the law laid down by the Honorable Apex Court in case of B srinivasulu and others Vs. Nelluru Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner Nelluru District, A,ndhra Pradesh reported in 2015 scc online sc 17g7 for the purpose of pensi.r and other benefits and to consider his caser for promotion to the post of ' pws Fitter Materman arong with others with i:rr consequentiar benefits including rronetary benefits. 1A NO: 't OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumsrances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents to regularize the services lf tne petitic,ner forthwith in terms of the G'o r/:; No -212 dated 22to4r1gg4 for the purpose of pension and other benefits as pril/s Fitter /waterman arong with others with a, consequentiar benefits in the interr-.s;t of justice. Counsel for the petitioner : SRI V.BALAIAH Counsel forthe Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES ll The Court made ther tbllowing: ORDER : TIIE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA"'ESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITI ONN o.655 2of 2023 oRDER: The petitioner flled the present writ petition seeking the following relief :- "..... to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS to tleclare lhe dction of the respondents in not consitlering the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his servrces as PWS Fitter/Waterman as onal and consequentlY direct illegal, arbitrary and unconstituli services of the Petitioner in the resPondenls to regularize the terms of G.O.Ms.No'212, clated 22 04'1994 by fotlowing the low laitl down by the llonorable Apex Court in case of Sri B.srinivasulu and others Vs Nellutu Municipal Corporation representecl by its Comnrissioner' Nelluru District' Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2015 SCC online SC 1797 for lhe purpose of Pension and other benefirs ancl to consider his case for promotion to the post of PWS Fitter /Waterman along with all consequenlial benefits including monelary others with benefits... .... 2 Heard Sri V.Balaiah, learned counsel' appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for ' Services-Il appearing for the respondents' : 2

3. Bri,ei'facts of the case are as follows :_ (4 The petitioner was initially appointe,l as pWS Fitter through employment exchange virle order No.133/86-T.2/pts, dated 05.09.1986 at Mothe Gram Parrchayat. Velpoor Mandal, Nizamabad District-6th respondenl. The petitioner is now working as a \[,zrterman. The petiticner made several representations t() the 6rh responderLt seeking regularization of his services, as he has completed .34 years of service. However, the resoondents have not r,:lgularized his services. (ii) 'rhe State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.021.1994, for regularizing the services of those employees of da y wage workers/NMRs or consolidated pay, subje,:t to the conditions that such employr_-r:s who worked continuousiy for a minimum periocl of fivr: vears and were corLtinuing as on 25. 1 1. 1993. (iii) 'Ihe part-time employees working in the erstwhile Gram panchayat of Nizamabad District appointed through errLp loyment exchange submitted an apphcation 3 on 03.04.2021 for regular izalion of their services' The 2"4 respondent issued Memo No'2441/CPR e' RElD2l2Ol9' dated 13.O5.2021, to the 3'd respondent, wheiein the petitioner's name is shown at Sl.No'2' (ir) The State Government issued G'O'Rt'No'762' , dated 24.12.2018, regularizing the services of (221 twenty two part-time employees working in the erstwhile Gram Panchayat of Nizamabad District' The reg;Jaized part- time workers are juniors to the petitioner' (rr) The Apex Court in ttlLe STATE OF KARNATAI{A Vs. TMADEVI| held that the employee concerned should have worked for 1O years or more in duly sanctioned post without the beneht of protection of the interim orders of any court or protection of the interim order of any Court or Tribunal for the relief of regularization of service' Though the petitioner has completed 34 years of service' the respondents have not regularized the petitioner's seryices' Hence, the Present writ Petition' ' 2006 (4) scc I 4

4. Le:uned counsel appearing for the petition,: r submits that as rrrr the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.N o.iZI2, dated 22 .O4 . ).994, the petitioner has completed five: years of continuous service and, therefore, in vielv of the, 1aw laid down by the Apex Court (supra) and as per G.O.l\{s.No.212, dated t1,t\.O4.7994, the petitioner is enlitled for regularization of his services, since he has completed more than 34 l ears of service, without any interrupl.ion. The petitioner's; appointment order does not mentio, u,hether the petitioner was appointed as a part tlme or iull time employee Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petit:ion by directing the respon<lents to cons;ider the petitioner's case for regularizing his services.

5. Learned Government pleader filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was appointed as a part_time employee and as per G.O.(p).No.112, dated 23.O7.1992, he has complered only (7) seven years of service as or the cut_ off date 25.II.1993 ald therefore, he is not elgible for regriarizat.ion. Further, G. O. Ms. No. 2 12, dated. 22. O 4. Igg 4, 5 is applicable only to the full time employees, and as the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis' as a part- time employee, the petitioner is not entitled for regtilarization of his services al1d, therefore' G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 does not apply to the petitioner. 6- Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents further states that the Hon'ble Apex Court in IIMADEVI's case (supra) had issued a direction to regdarize the services of temporaqr employees' who were appointed in the sanctioned post and rendered more than ten years of service. In the instart case, the petitioner was appointed as a Part-time emPloYee in an unsanctioned post. Therefore, the petitioner's case cannot be considered for regularizing his services.

7. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents further states that where did not consider the cases under G.O.(P).No' 112 dated 23'07 '1997 ald 6 il) G.O.Ms.lttr,r.272, dated 22.O4.1994, the Government issued guidelines for multipurpose workers in Gram F,:r-nchayats in G.(t.Ms.No.51, dated 14.70.2019, wherein the Governm.ent issued orders duly enhalcing the wages of Gram Panchayat employees working in Gram palr:hayat on part time, full time, contract and outsou rcing at Rs.8,50O/ -. In the instant case, the petitioner is now enjoying tre benefit of G.O.Ms.No.S1 and getting a higher salary a-rrcl therefore the question of regularizatirrn of his services C tes not arise. Thus, there are no merits in the writ petitic,n alld the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsei for the respective parties, is of the conslc ered view that a perusal of the appointment order of the petitioner dated 05.09.1986 goes to show that the name of the petitioner stands at S1.No.17. He was appointedl on a temporar5r basis and in the apl;,rintment order, it v;rLs clearly mentioned that no future rigtrts will be l 7 transferred and at any time, he may be removed without issuing any notice.

9. In G.O.Ms.No.2l2, dated 22.04.1994, it is clearly mentioned that absorption shatl be against clear vacancies of posts considered necessary to be continued as per work load excluding the vacancies a-lready notilied to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission/District Selection Committee. As per the above G.O., the regularization will only be done against the vacant posts. In the instant case, the petitioner was not appointed against the salctioned post or vacant post ald he was appointed on temporary basis. Moreover, the petitioner is aged 58 years as on the date of frling of the writ petition and kept quiet for all these years and when G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04. 1994 was being implemented, he has given only representation and thereafter, he did not pursue the matter. Once the appointment of the petitioner is on temporary basis, he has no right to ask any benefit fot regtiarization of his services' After a lapse of several years, the petitioner has filed the l 8 present writ petition for regttlarization of his services that too at ttre fagend of his service, which is not permissible, ald moreover he is enjoying the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.51, dated 1zl. 1O.2O19. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed

10. Accc,rdingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costr;. Pencling miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-T. JAYASREE REGISTRAR AS ON OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI V.BALAIAH, Advocate. [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to ,3P FOR SERVICES ll, High Court for the Stab of Telangana

3. Two CD Cc,pies. BSK BS6 1i-tE STA TF ft'i$ 0 5 Fiii] 2025 <. {\ 1', i- . ]),cJ;::a-6.ri "l';--..._--.. --l HIGH COURT DATED:1910212025 ORDER WP.No.6552 of 2023 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C()STS d C'CT^ 5 I I i t,