K Srinu v. Govt of A P

Order

WRIT PETITION No.14991 of 2010 On 10.10.1999 recruitment notification was issued for recruitment to the post of Drivers, Conductors and Shramiks in Hyderabad city Region and Ranga Reddy Region. Petitioners responded the said recruitment notification, selected, empanelled and were subjected to training. It appears, petitioners have also worked during the strike period when regular employees went on strike for more than 21 days. They were employed on daily wage basis in the year 2001-02 as conductors on various dates as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support

of the writ petition. They continued in service on daily wage basis till their services were regularized w.e.f. 1.7.2009. In this writ petition, petitioners challenge orders of the Government in G.O.Ms No. 145 Transport, Roads & Buildings (Tr.II) Department dated

1.7.2009 directing regularization prospectively and consequential orders of the respondent corporation regularizing services prospectively and consequently, petitioners seek direction to regularize their services from the date of their initial appointment or from date of completion of 240 days as extended to other similarly situated persons.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners Sri V.Narasimha Goud and Sri Pravin Kumar appearing on behalf of Sri Vasudeva Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent corporation.

3.1. According learned counsel for petitioners, petitioners were subjected to regular selection process and empanelment. Recruitment was against existing vacancies. Their PNRJ WP 14991_2010 3 appointment though described as daily wage, it should be treated as regular and continuous and therefore their services ought to have been regularized from date of their initial appointment on daily wage basis. Thus, regularizing their services only with effect from 1.7.2009 is ex-facie illegal, amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and authority and is illegal. Learned counsel would also contend that batch-mates of petitioners who were similarly recruited and appointed were also regularized from date of appointment on daily wage basis and not extending the same benefit to petitioners amounts to discrimination among the same class of people and therefore arbitrary. It also amounts to unfair labour practice.

3.2. Learned counsel would alternatively submit that respondent corporation granting regularization on completion of 240 days and said policy must be extended uniformly to all similarly situated persons and therefore the services of petitioners ought to have been regularized on completion of 240 days.

3.3. By placing reliance on decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. 20440 of 2000 dated 24.2.2003, he would submit that this Court directed regularization of services of persons similarly situated to petitioners on completion of 240 days. The said decision was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1897 of 2003 dated 28.9.2011 and SLP (C) No.002417 of 2012 was dismissed on 30.1.2012. Principle laid down by this Court in the said writ petition ought to be extended to petitioners.

3.4. He would further submit that there is no provision to appoint employees on daily wage basis in the services of the PNRJ WP 14991_2010 4 respondent corporation and alien concept cannot be introduced and same was introduced only to deprive the service benefits to which a regular employee is entitled to. The manner in which services of petitioners were utilized would amount to exploitation of labour and respondent corporation being an entity of the State cannot indulge in such practices. The services of the petitioners were required and their services are utilized continuously until their services are regularized. Thus, there was requirement of their services and such requirement was continuous and regular, that being so, denying the service rendered by petitioners before

1.7.2009 is ex-facie illegal.

3.5. Learned counsel for petitioners would therefore submit that condition imposed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.145 dated 1.7.2009 directing regularization only prospectively and consequential orders are liable to be set aside. He would submit that as no counter affidavit is filed opposing prayer of petitioners to set aside cut-off date in the GO, it is deemed that respondent Government has opposed contention of petitioners, therefore the clause fixing cut-off date is liable to be declared as illegal and therefore consequently petitioners are entitled to computation of entire service as regular service.

3.6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in PNRJ WP 14991_2010 5 U.P. State Electricity Board Vs Pooran Chandra Pandey and others1, Jivanlal Vs. Pravin Krishna, Principal Secretary and others2.

4.1. Per contra, Sri Pravin Kumar, appearing for respondent corporation would submit that initial recruitment itself was on daily basis; petitioners never protested when they were appointed on daily wage basis and continued in said post till their services were regularized. But for order of the Government in G.O.Ms No. 145 dated 1.7.2009, their services could not have been regularized. He would submit that the Government earlier granted permission to the corporation vide G.O.Ms No.285 Transport, Roads and Buildings (Tr.II) Department dated 5.10.2007 to regularize casual employees working for long time in 3750 posts then available. In terms of the Government orders, services of casual employees were regularized. In the process, 603 posts remained unfilled for various reasons. Further, as some more casual employees were demanding for regularization, permission to regularize casual employees in the resultant unfilled vacancies and some other vacancies subsequently available was granted vide G.O.Ms No. 145 dated

1.7.2009.

4.2. He would submit, retrospective regularization claim of petitioners cannot be granted as then existing vacancies were filled up by regularizing services of casual employees working much prior to joining in service by petitioner and were all seniors. 1 (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 736 2 (2016) 15 SCCC 747 PNRJ WP 14991_2010 6

4.3. By placing reliance on the judgment of learned single Judge in W P No. 14783 of 2010 and batch, he would submit that this Court only granted regularization of services with effect from date when employees selected in pursuant to notification dated

10.10.1999 were regularized in terms of G.O.Ms No. 285 dated

5.10.2007. Petitioners herein were also appointed in pursuant to the very same recruitment notification and their services are regularized in the consequent vacancies in pursuant to G.O.Ms.No. 285 dated 5.10.2007 and as per orders in G.O.Ms No. 145 dated

1.7.2009.

4.4. Learned standing counsel placed reliance on decisions of Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs Jasmer Singh and others3, Registrar General of India and another Vs V.Thippa Setty and others4, Union of India and others Vs Sheela Rani5.

5. In reply, learned counsel Sri Narasimha Goud would submit that W.P. No. 14783 of 2010 and batch was dealing with G.O.Ms.No.285 dated 5.10.2007 therefore has no relevance to the present case. He would further submit that judgment in Sheela Rani relied on by learned standing counsel for respondents dealt with back-door entrants whereas petitioners are not back-door entrants.