't. Smt.K.Lakshmamma v. 1. The State of Telangana

dl. 1913t2021 of the 3'r respondent, pending final disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES - | Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: SRI RAMESH CHILLA, S.C. FOR MUNICIPALITIES The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.17696 OF 7021 ORD ER: Heard Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The oetitio ers aDDroached the Court seekino Draver as under: ".......to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by calling for the records relating to the Proc Roc. No. 299626/202I/A3 dt 1,9/3/2021 issued by the 3rd respondent and set aside the same by declaring as illegal, arbitrary, and voilative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to grant retrospective regularization from the date of completion of '5' years for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015 dt 17.08.2015 has followed by this Honourable Supreme Court in WP. No. 33936 of 2011 and Batch Reported in 2OlB 4 ALT Page 6 with a direction to pay pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioners oF deceased employees and pass....."

3. The specific grievance of the petitioners is that both the petitioners husbands( Diseased ) were appointed as PH workers on NMR basis in the year 1986. Thereafter petitioners husbands along with other workers filed OA. No.38/2006 ;*" t\ 2 before thr: Hon'ble Ap Administrative Tribunal for the regularizat on of services which was dismissed by order dated 09.06 200ti but the same order was set aside by this composite AP High Court in the W.p.No.1tg)2/2OOg preferred by petitioners husbands and court was pleased to direct the respondents to reconsider the request of the petitioners husbands for regularization. Thereafter go,vernment had issued GO 1t.No.1229 MA & UD dated 3.08.2013 regularizing their services prospectively, but not retrospectively from the date of conrpletion of '5' years of daily wage service, for the purpose of seniority, pension and other benefits even after extracting t he service from the petitioners similar to regular workers i.e,, B hours per day. It is further the case of the petitioenrs that in similar circumstances, the Apex Court in Srinivasulu and others vs Neflore Municipal Corporations held that daily wage workers who were regularized are entitled to retrospective regularization i.e., from the date of completion of .5, years as temporary worker, for the puritose of seniority and other benefits and Andhra Pradesh government had implemented the directions given by Apex Court but same is not being followed by the J respondents herein. It is further the case of the petitioners that this Hon'ble High Court by relying on Srinivasulu and others vs Nellore Municipal Corporation directed the respondents to implement the retrospective regularization oF service for the purpose of seniority, pension and other benefits but respondents are not implementing the above directions by citing that the Apex Court in Srinivasulu and others vs Nellore Municipal Corporation dated

17.08.2015 relied on M.L.Singh case judgement which was overruled by the Apex court in Manjula Bashini case reported in 2OO9 (4) SCC 431. Aggrieved by said action of the respondents, the petitioners approached the Court by filing the present Writ Petition. PERUSED THE RECORD:- The petitioners herein in the present Writ Petition are

4. the wives of the deceased employees, i.e., petitioner Nos. 5 & 6 in W.P.(TR) No.2432 of 2017, on earlier occasion, employees i.e., the husbands of the petitioners herein, the oetitioner Nos.5&6inW.P.(TR) No.2432 ot 2O17 aooroached th is Court seekinq orav r as under:- 4 ".........to declare the action of the respondents in not counting the service rendered by the applicants on daily wage: basis prior to regularization their services for qualifying service for calculating the pensionary benefits is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, -discriminatory and viola:ion of principles of natural justice and consr:quently direct the respondents to count the service rendered by the applicants on daily wage basis prior to regularization of their services for the purpose of qualifying service for fixing the pension if necessary by sr:tting aside the regularization orders issued vide G.O.Rt. No.1229 MA&UD dated 3.8.20t3 only to the extent of prospective regularization in so far as the applir:ants are concerned and to pass such other order lfr orrjers

5. This Cou disoosed of the said Writ Petition vide ted 29.04 .2O19 in WP(TR) No.2432 of 20L7 observinq as un der: - Having considered the rival submissions made by the learnr:d counsel on either side, this Ccurt is of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if a direction is given to the respondents to consider the case :f the petitioners fo r_reg u la rization of their services with retrospective effect from_25.11.1993 in terms of the ludgment reported in Civil Appeal No.631B of 2015, dated 17.8.2015, which was followed by this Court in W.P.1Jo.33936 of 2011 and batch dated 2.5.2018 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above observations, the Writ petition is disposed of. No costs. /. 5

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that in pursuance to the orders of this Court, dated

29.04.2079 passed in W.p.(TR) No.2432 of 2017, the present impugned proceedings had been passed by the 3.d respondent vide proceedings, Roc.No.299626/202I/43, dated 19.03.202t contrary to the observations and the speciFic directions issued in the orders of this Court, dated 29.04.20t9 passed in W.P.(TR) No.2432 of 2017, which had attained finatiry and further, vide specific directions of this Court in the said Writ Petition, the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services with retrospective effect from 25.11.1993 in terms of the judgment reported in Civil Appeal No. 6318 of 20t5, dated 17.08.2015 which was followed by this Court in W.P.Nos. 33936 of 2011 and batch, dated 02.05.2018 and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law, but however, neither the said orders had been considered nor the competent Authority had exercised its jurisdiction and the impugned proceedings had been passed by the 3'd respondent i.e., The Commissioner & , Director of Municipal Administration, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad 1 6 whereas it. is the 1st respondent who is the Authority competent take a decision in the above said subject issue. 7 The relevant Dortion ofthe iudqm ent of the Aoex Court in Civil ADDeal No.6 318 of 2 5,d d

17.o .2O15 is extracte hereun er: - " We find it difficult to accept the reasoning adopted by the High Court. The right of the appeilanti to ser:k regularization flows from the G.O.No.212, dated 22,O4.1994. The appellant have been in service of the first respondent not only prior to the issuance oF the said (1.O. but even subsequent to the issue of G.O till today. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body ls obliged by the G.O.212(supra). In spite of the above, mentioned G.O., the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularizing the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants. In the circumstances referring the benefit oF the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is followed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants, services be regularized with effect from the date of their compteting iheir five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in Disl.rict Collector/Chairperson & Others Vs. M.L.Singh & Ors 2009(B) SCC 480. I The relevant Dort ion of the iudo ment of this Court, dated O .os.2 18 oassed in .P.Nos 3393 of 20 1& 7 batch reDorted in 2018 4) ALT Daqe 6 is extracted ( hereu nder: -

53. On the above analysis, the Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the authorities concerned to extend the benefit of B.Srinivasulu (1 supra) to the employees in th is batch of cases by reckoning their services from the date of completion of five years in seryice, on or before 25.11.1993, for the purpose of their pension and pensionary benefits. They shall however not be entitled to actual monetary benefits for the said period, in the form oF arrears of pay or a llowa nces.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the impugned proceedings. dated 19.03.2021 of the 3'd respondent is totally contrary to the view of this Court in identical circumstances passed in W.P.Nos.33936 of 2011 and batch, dated 02.05.2018 reported in 2018 (4) ALT 6 and hence, the order impugned, dated L9.03.2021 passed by the 3'd respondent needs to be set-aside and the present Writ Petition needs to be allowed as prayed for by the petitioners h erein.

10. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand submits that the 1't respondent is the competent authority to pass the I I 8 orders, du y implementing the earlier orders of this Court, dated 29.04.2019 passed in W.p.(T.R) No.2432 of 2Ot7 and therefore, the matter could be remitted to the 1't respondent for reconsirieration of the subject issue in accordance to law within a reasonable period.

11. Ta kinq into conside ration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and tearned Government Pleader for Services-f, appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The order of this Court, dated 29.O4.2O1g passed in W.P. (T.R).No.2432 ol 2OL7 (referred to and extracted above) d) The judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6318 of 201-5, dated 17.O8.2O1S.(referred to and extracted above). d) The judgment of this Court, dated 02.05.2018 passed in W.P.Nos. 33936 of zOtL & batch I I 9 reported in 2018 (4) ALT page 6 (referred to and extracted above). The Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned Proceedings Roc.No.299626/2021/ag, dated

19.O3.2O21 issued by the 3'd respondent is set-aside, the subject issue is remitted to the 1"t respondent herein to take a decision afresh in the matter, duly taking into consideration the specific directions of this Court, vide its order dated 29.O4.2OL9 passed in W.P.(T.R).No.2432 ot 2OL7 (referred to and extracted above) and also the judgment of the Apex Court, dated

17.08.2015 passed in Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2O15 and the order of this Court, dated O2.O5.2018 passed in W.P.Nos. 33936 of 2011 & batch reported in 2018 (4) ALT page 6 (referred to and extracted above) within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order in accordance to Iaw and pass appropriate orders and duly communicate the decision pertaining to grant of retrospective regularization from the date of completion of five (O5) years for the l0 purpose of pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioners. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 14isc€:llaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/. P.PADMANABHA BEDDY oEPUW RRGIFTRAR //TRUE COPY// Buildings. Hyderabad. Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. \\/ sEcTtoN drrrcen 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, State of 2. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat 3. The Commissioner and Director of Nilunicipal Administration, AC Guards, + I|g Commrssioner, Mahabubnagar Municipality, Mahabubnagar, 5. One CC to SRI P RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI 6. Two CCs to GP for Services-|, High Court for the State of Telangana at 7. One CC to SRI RAIVESH CH|LLA, S.C. for Municipatities [OPUC] B. Two CD Copier; Mahabubnagar District, Hyderabad. [OUT] Hyderabad. 1,o, MP CC TODAY ! i I I I I i , I HIGH COURT DATED:2010312025 trE. Sla 14 o k 22 tpn nn t-',\ .,. 1] .l c -) ,-) (.' lL a/. * | ':,- , r'.-v ,z --'-:''-' oRDER WP.No.17696 ot 2021 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\