B.Radhakrishna & Anr. v. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Hyderabad & Anr.

It is represented by Sri Gopal Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner has left the services and therefore, he does not want to pursue this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn in so far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned. The petitioner No.1 who is now the sole petitioner seeks regularization of his service as driver, determination of pay scales as revised from time to time, payment of arrears of salary and other consequential benefits. The petitioner claims that he was appointed as Driver on 1-8- 1992 and was working as such since then on daily wages of Rs.45/- per day. The District Rural Development Agencies (for short ‘the Agencies’) are stated to have been formed by the State and Central Governments jointly with equal shares in the project. The Agencies are formed for the purpose of bringing up upliftment of rural people as well as the rural areas. The 1st respondent is stated to be the administrative authority incharge of the Agencies and the District Collector is the Ex-Officio Chairman with regard to the functioning of the Agencies in the District. The petitioner asserts that the Agencies the instrumentalities of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In view of the orders issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.135 PR & RD (SC-II) Department, dated 8-3-1991 regularizating the services of directly recruited employees working in the Agencies, in the respective posts they occupied, with benefits of seniority, the petitioner claims similar benefit. The petitioner also states that in other sectors of the State for posts like Additional Gramasevakas, this Court had directed payment of salary on par with regular Gramsevakas. The petitioner further asserts that the services of the drivers in other departments in Warangal District were also regularized, but, in which department, is not stated. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to regularization and seeks the relief adverted to, in addition to payment of salary in the time scale of pay of Rs.1595/- with usual admissible allowances like HRA, DA etc., from August,

1996. It is to be noticed that neither the State of Andhra Pradesh nor the District Rural Development Agencies have been impleaded as respondents to this writ petition. Only the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and the Project Director, District Rural Development Agencies have been impleaded as respondents to this writ petition. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter-affidavit. The answering respondent states that the petitioner is working on daily wages in the office of the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Cuddapah. There were no orders appointing him on daily wages. His services were requisitioned on daily wage basis as and when required. The petitioner is stated to be working since 1992. The answering respondent disclaims the right of the petitioner to seek for regularization of his service as driver in the 2nd respondent’s office. It is denied that the petitioner was in continuous service since 1-8-1992. It is also stated that he was not recruited and appointed as driver but was attending to driving duties on daily wage basis as per requirement and was paid wages for the number of days he worked. It is clearly denied that the petitioner was continuously working since 1-8-1992. Regarding applicability of G.O.Ms.No.135, Panchayat Raj, dated 8-3-1991 the answering respondent states that as the petitioner was neither appointed to work on daily wage basis, on casual basis, on part time basis, or on contingent basis and was not working under Foreign Service terms and conditions either, the G.O. has no application. It is also stated that pursuant to the directions of this Court, the request of daily wage drivers was examined and the petitioner was informed that as he was not appointed or recruited as daily wage driver in the Agencies and no order was issued appointing him as daily wage driver, regularization of services cannot be considered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.135, Panchayat Raj Department, dated 8-3-1991 and further as his service is being utilized as and when there is need for a driver, in different spells, without continuous service, he is not entitled to regularization. The petitioner has neither averred nor shown that he was recruited on direct recruitment basis by the respondents after a formal and transparent process of recruitment. It is also not established that he was recruited pursuant to any notification calling for applications for recruitment, even on a temporary basis. It is not even the petitioner’s case that the respondent had sent requisition to the Employment Exchange and he was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. If the respondents is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution as asserted by the petitioner, then even if the respondents have no statutory rules governing recruitment, the principles of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution apply to condition the recruitment practices of the respondents. Since there may be number of persons who may be qualified and come within the zone of eligibility for any post in the respondents office and such persons are entitled to apply for recruitment to such posts, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to have notified any vacancy for recruitment, whether the recruitment was regular or on temporary basis. The practices followed by the respondents in recruiting what it calls drivers on contingency basis as and when required and on payment of daily wages, is not clear. Even for a casual appointment or contingent appointment or on daily wage basis, since the respondent is asserted to be an instrumentality of the State, there should be a formal process of appointment clearly specifying the nature of the employment whether temporary or permanent or tenure basis, the wage payable and other conditions of service applicable to such employment on the basis of the nature of the employment. In any event, as the engagement of the petitioners by the respondents does not appear to be conditioned by any formality, it cannot be considered even as an irregular appointment continued for long. Every disregard to any procedure or a process of recruitment does not entitle the petitioner to seek regularization of his service. If the respondents had framed any scheme or guide lines for regularization even in respect of employees engaged on such informal basis and if the petitioner is governed by such scheme, then he can claim benefits under such scheme. No such scheme exists or is pleaded to exist. On the aforesaid analysis and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Umadevi v. Union of India [1] , no relief could be granted to the petitioner. There are no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 19-12-2006 GRR _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J [1] (2006) 4 SCC 1