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 regularize the service of the petitioner as SWEEPER in view as per Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment i.e, in Uma Devi on par with other sweepers by paying arrears of salary on such regularization of service by setting aside the impugned order bearing Procdgs.No. A21689312009 Dated. '18i06l2021' on Respondent. No.3, as petitioner is entitle for regularization of her service, by issuing writ of Mandamus or any other order or direction as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition unde- Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir,:umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Ccurt may be pleased to direct the respondet)ts to consider the representations of the petitioner to continue as swEEPER on nrinimum wages till final disposal of the rnain writ Petition by suspending impugned order bearing No. A216893/2009 Dated. 1810612021 . Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R. ANURAG Counsel for the Re:;pondents: GP FOR SERVICES-ll The Court made th(l following: ORDER d THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.274O1 of2O22 ORDER: The present u'rit petition is hled aggrieved by the proceedings No.A2l6a93l20O9, dated 1B'06'20O1, issued by the 3.a Respondent.

2. Heard Sri R.Anurag, learned counsel for the petitioner and the iearned Government Pleader for Services-ll, appearing for the respondents'

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper in May 1993 on temporary basis. While so, the petitioner hled O.A.No.2878 of 200O seeking regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.O4.1994,'*'hich was allowed on 23.O2.2OO1. Aggrieved thereby, the State has filed a writ petition and obtained an interim order, and thereby' the sa1ary was not paid to the petitioner' As such' the petitioner has again filed O.A.No'4669 of 2OO3' The same ..*<{f;lH 2 \,r'as dispo:iccl of on 11.06.2009, directing the Department to verifl t I re attendance register and, if amounts are due, make arra rgements to release payment \ .ithin one month. As the rcslondents took no action, the petit.oner has once again lilcrl (l.A.No.42B of 2Ol1 arld the Tribunal on

27.Oa.2olll clirected the respondents to pa./ salaries due from Marclr 1993 to November 2009 aiong with the balance amount, if anv, bv deducting the amount alr.ead1, paid to the petitio'rcr'. Thereafter, the petitioner al)llroached the Honble [-, rkalLrkta, i,.nd \ rith the interv<:ntion of the Honblc I.okalr-rktzr, thc respondents issued ,a cheque for the amorrn ol Rs.49,066/ However, it was observed that if the pet lioncr has any grievance, she must file an appropriat( appiication before the Tribunal. Subsequently, the pctiti('ncr filed W.P.No.4O239 of 21tl6 seeking regularizzrtion of services and payment of arr:ars and after admission of the said rvrit petition, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.Nc .49587 of 2016 seeking a direr:tion to the respondent s to consider the represr:ntation for ) regula,rization arrd payment of arrea-rs and salaries ' This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 07 'O3'2O21' directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order' After disposal of the said writ petition, the respondents passed the impugned orderdatedls.06.2o2L,rejectingpetitioner,scasefor the petitioner has filed regalaization. Aggrieved thereby' the present writ Petition' 4 . Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents filed a counter a-ffidavit stating that the petitioner was temporarily appointed as a Sweeper by the Revenue Divisional Officer' Warangal' vide Proceedings No.C/3876/1993, in the month of May 1993' The petitioner approached the Tribunal for payment of wages and regulari zation ofher services' The Tribunal' vide order d.ated3O.02.2O1O,rnO'A'No'1026/20l0issueddirections tothe3.drespondentttrerein,theDistrictCollector,topass t.-s I 4 orders or the letter dated 22.l2.2oo9 of the l"t Responder 1, i.e.. the Tahsildar in terms of C.O.Ms.No.212, dated: 22.o4. 1994. Accordingly, in pursuance of the orders of the Trit urnal, the case of the petitioner rvas examined, and in terrns of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated

22.O4.199,1, she has to complete (5) years o[ service on or before 2 5 . 1 1 . 1993, to get eligibilitl, for relStlarization of service in the Department. In this instiurt case, the petltloncr \\:at s appointed on 07.05.1993 rand did not complete (5 j \ ca rs of service as rerlr-ri1s6l under G.O.Ms.Nc 2l2, dated 22.O4.1994. The 3'a Respondent has rejected ti- c Petitioner's case for regulariza,ion of service vide Proct t:dings No.A2/6893/2O09, date<l 07.08.2010. The petitic ner rr,as disengaged from service trv September 2000, br-r as per the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.42til201 1 , dated 27 .O8.2013, the wages and arrears rve re paid to the petitioner up to September 2OO9 as per th e attendance certificate issued by the then Tahsildar, Hanumakonda ( 1"t respondent). '1 5 It is further stated that the petitioner has hled 5. W.P.No.4o23 9 of 2016, and this Court disposed of the said writ petition, directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law' Pursuant to the said order, the respondents have examined the matter and rightly passed the impugned order' rejecting the Petitioner's case'

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitroner was initially appointed as Sweeper on 31.05.1993, and the respondents ought to have reguiarized her servrces ln support of his contentions' learned counsel 7. appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the SE;CRETARY, STATE OF Hon'bie APex Court ln KARNATAI2A AND OTHERS Vs' \IMA DEWr with regard to the regularization o[ employee's services' ' (2006) 4 scc I I 6 B. Leanrecl counsel appearing for the petil.ioner further submits t[ at lhe employee shal1 be regularized r.r,henever the emplo. e e completes ten years of his/hr, r service. The petitioner \\,AS appointed in the year- 1993 and continuour,lv ri'orked and completed nihet<:en )-ears of service b1' 2O 12. The petitioner's SCTVlCCS ,)ught to have been reg llarized rvith effect from 20l.2, trut the respondenr s have erroneously passed the inrpugned order rejecting t[ e petitior-rer's claim. Hence. the ir-rpugned order is liable to be set irsicle 9 . Learr ed Gor.ernment Pleader apper: ring for the responcienr s submits that the resporrdents, after considerinll tl're malerial available on record, rightly passed the impugrLccl ordcr', and there are no grounds to interfere r'r'ith the same. Therefore, the writ petitiorr is devoid of merits and t.he samc is liable to be dismissed

10. Consictering the rival submissions ma<lt: by learned counsel for the respective parties, and perusing the record, 7 the Petitioner initially filed O'A' for regularization of service under G.O.Ms.No.212, d'ated' 22'O4'1994' Under the said G.O., the government formulated a scheme for the regularization ol servrces of the persons appointed on daily wage/NMR or on consolidated pay, which will continue on the date of commencement of the Act' The Government accordingly decided that the services of such persons who workedcontinuouslyforaminimumperiodoffiveyears andarecontinuingason25-11.1993beregu1arizedbythe appointing authorities subject to fulfillment of the foilowing conditions : - 1) The person appointed should possess the qualiJications prescibecl os per tules in force as on lis/ her seruices haue to be the date fron uhich regulaised. 2) TtEg should be tuithirt the age limits as on the appointment date as NMR/ DoilA tuage emplogees' 3) The rule of reseruation, uhereuer applicable' uill be follouLed, and backlog utill be set off against future uacarlcles. ,., I I I i I i I I I I 8 (1 4). Sp'trrsoing of candidates front the Enplogment Exchar'ge is relaxed. 5) Ab: onttiott shall be against clear uaconcies of post.s ,'onsiderecl necessary to be continue'C as per utork-l< ctd excluding the uacancies alreadg r ctified to the Ar dhra Pradesh t-\tblic Seruice Comnrisston / Dlstict,Selectiort Oommitte e. 6) In tl e case oJ' Workcharged Establishmer,.t, tlhere there u,ill be no clear uacancies, because o_i the fact that th. expenditure on Workcharged ls ai a ftted percenl,tge of P.S. charqes and as soon. (7s th,z tuork is ouer. tL e serpice-s of uork charged estabLishrnent ruill haue tc be tenrtinatecl, theg shatt be adjust<td in t lrc other d)petlments. Districl Offices prouided iL;ere ore clear uc,c.ancies of last Grade Seruice." 1 1 . In tht irrstant case. the petitioner has fjiecl O.A. lor reguiarizati rn of her sen,ices in terms of G.().Ms.No.212, dated 22.O,.1994. As per the preliminary con,Citron rn rhe said G.O., the petitioner has to complete five years of senice as on 25. i 1.1993. whereas the p:titioner \ ras appointed ir the month of May, 1993. A perusal of the record discltses thal. the petitioner could not complete five 9 years of service as on 25'Il 'lgg3 and therefore' the petitioner is not entitled for regular izatiort of her services' Further, pursuant to the award of the t'oka1'uktha' the respondents have issued a cheque for arr amount of Rs.49,066/- to the Petitioner' The Apex Court in UMA DEVts case (1 supra)' held t2. as follows

53. One aspect needs to be ctaifted' There mag be cases ttthere iregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S'V'NaraAanappa [(1967) ] SCR 128: AIR 1967 SC 10711' R'N' Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409: (1972) 2 SCR 7991 and B.N Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507: 198O ACC (L&S) 4: (1979) 3 SCR g37l and refened to in para 15 abotte, of cluly qualified persons in dulg sonctioned urrcant posts might houe been made and the emplogees haue continued to utork ten Aeors or more but tuithout' the interuention of orders of the courts or of tibunals Tle qtestion of reguloisation of the seruices of such emplogees may houe to be considered on meits in the light of the pincipals settled by tltis court in tle cases aboue rekned. to and in the tight of this judgment' In that context' the Llnion of India' the State l0 0 Cou,,rrtments and their instrumentalities should tctke steps to regulaise as o one-time mectsure, the .serr, ces of stu:h ircegularly appointed, ttho haue tuori 'ed for ten Aears or more in dulg sottctiotrcd post; but not under couer of orders of the c.ourls or of tr lrur'tals artd should further en-sure thrtt regular recn itnterrts are undertaken to fitt tiose uacqnt saru liorrcd posts that require to be filtea up, irt case; urhere temporary emplogees or dail 1 uagers ere t)cblq nou., emploged. The process mtrst be sel in m ttiort ttith.irt six month.s from this date We also clcti,'i1 that regu.IarizatiotT, if ang alreadg nutde, Itut tlol sub judice, need not be reopened based on tLd.s judgirreri, but th.ere should be no further b.,1,cassint1 of tlt,, cotlstitrt tional requirement and recltdaizinq or rrt,tk.ing pennanent. those not dulg app<tintecl as per I tte constitttlional scheme." l.l. As per the aforesaid judgment. the petitioner has to com plete t€ n ,\,earq o I service . Since the petitioner has not completcri l.'n -\'ears of sen,ice, the petitioner .s not entitled to regulariz rrion of her services. Therefore, tLis Court is of the opinion that the respondents have right t passed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner.,s case for regLllarisati( )n of his services ald there are r o grounds to 11 interfere with the same. Therefore, the writ petition 1S devoid of merits ald the same is liable to be dismissed.

14. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shal1 stand closed. //TRUE COPY//

1. One CC to Sri R. Anurag. Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Services-ll, High Court for the Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies T6, TJ BS SD/-L. VIJAYA LAXMI AS ISTANT REGIST SECTION OFFICER ate of Telangana, at HIGH COURT DATED:2410312025 ORDER WP.No.2740'1 ot 2022 L C Y r. t( ,C 2 1 nnn 2925 /" .\, .t, DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ( $.