P. Srinivasa Rao v. 'l . The State of Telangana

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstahces stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in terms of judgment reported in 2O1B(4) ALT 6 (DB) by suspending the operation of the impugned proceedings in Memo.Rc.No.B1/317112019, dated 03-08-2019 of the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BOYA RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and2: AGP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI CH. SATISH KUMAR, SC The Court made the fotlowing: ORDER .t HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Heard Sri Boya Ravim n appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing on behalf of respondent Ns.l and 2 and Sri Ch.Satish Kumar, Iearned standing counsel appearing on behalf respondent No.3.

2. With the consent of the parties, the present wrat petition is disposed of.

3. "...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus deelaring the action of the 2nd r.espondent in rejecting the proposals of the 3d respondent for regularization of the petitioner on retrospectively communicated by proceedings in Memo. Rc.No.B1l317L/2OL9, dated 03-08-2019 of the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same and consequently to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner with retrospective basis with effect from t4-OL-1997 with all consequential benefits like seniority, revision of pay scales, 1999, 2003, 2008 and 2013 and pensionery benefits and to pass..." 2 SN, J wP 23403 2019

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the subject issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Common Order of this Court dated

02.05.2018 passed in W.P. No.33936 of 2011 and batch and the order dated 23.07.2024 passed in W.P. No.19374 of 2O24 and requests this Court to pass similar order in the present Writ Petition. The same is not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing on behalf of respondent Ns.1 and 2. 5 PERUSED THE RECORD A) The reIevant oortion of the order dated O2.O5.2O18 oassed in W.P.No.33936 of 2O11. "As already pointed out, when no regular exercise was ever undertaken in any Department to assess the vacancy position so as to immediately extend benefit to those covered by G.O.Ms.No.2L2, it is not open to the State to now come forward and say that there were no vacancies as on the date that the employees in question completed five years in service, on or before 25.L1.L993. A mere assertion in this regard is nothing short of an unsupported self-serving ipse dixit on the part of the State and its instru menta lities and cannot be accepted at face value. Further, the facts in some of the cases on hand clearly demonstrate that despite clear vacancies being available, no timely steps were taken. Further, when such employees were retained in service for decades together, the necessity to continue them as per the workload is manifest and clearly demonstrated, requiring no further evidence. In such a situation where the State and its instrumentalities are responsible for the situation where it cannot be assessed now as to whether 3 SN, J wP 23403 2019 Condition No.5 in G.O.Ms.No.212 stood fulfilled as on the date of completion of five years in service by the employees concerned, the benefit of doubt would invariably have to be given to the said employees and not to the State. It is perhaps this very aspect that weighed with the Supreme Court in B.SRINMSULUI, as no mention was made therein of strict compliance with Condition No.5 in G.O.Ms.No.212, despite the said issue being brought up by the Nellore Municipal Corporation. : The question of the State Exchequer being saddled with additional expenditure in relation to such regularization does not arise, as the relief already granted to some of the employees in the cases on hand is to reckon their seruices upon completion of five years on or before 25.11.1993 only for the purpose of their pension and pensionary benefits. They are not to be given any monetary benefits in the form of arrears of pay or otherwise. Similar relief would have to be extended to those employees who were non-suited by the Tribunal and are before this Couft. As all of them serued the State or its instrumentalities for decades together, extending to them the benefit of such service only for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits can hardly be said to be an onerous burden either on the State or the State Exchequer. Having utilized their services all along, the State and its instrumentalities cannot now turn their back on the loyal services rendered by these employees. The learned Government Pleader would also point out that some of the O.A.s/writ petitions were filed with substantial delay after the regularization orders were passed, giving the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.212 with effect from the stipulated dates therein prospectively. She woqld_ asseft that such settled matters should not be unsettled merely because the Supreme Couft passed the subsequent order in B.SRINMSULUI. It may however be noticed that the trajectory of developments since the issuance of G.O. Ms. No .212, as set out hereinbefore, demonstrates that there was no consistency even in the orders passed by the Tribunal and this Court. Identically situated people were treated differently. The narration supra in relation to this very batch of cases ,4 SN, J wP_23403_20 t 9 demonstrates that the Tribunal gave the benefit of RINMSULUT to some and denied it to others. .In such a fluid and uncertain situation, an employee cannot be blamed for seeking relief even after lapse of sope years as there was no clarity as to the legal position. As the Supreme Court has now settled the same by way of its decision in B.SRINMSULUl, employees who completed five years of service on or before 25.11.1993 and were already regularised in service with prospective effect cannot be found fault with for approaching this Court with some delay so as to seek the benefit of their past service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 at least for the limited purpose of their pension and pensionary benefits. On the above analysis, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the authorities concerned to extend the benefit of B.SRINMSULUI to the employees in this batch of cases by reckoning their services from the date of completion of five years in service, on or before 25.1L.L993, for the purposes 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 allowances." B) I "5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and for the reasons alike in the common order, dated 02.05.2018 in W.P.No.33936 of 2011 and batch and in view of the benefit extended by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'B.Srinivasulu v. Municipal Corporation', this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the authorities concerned to reckon the services of the petitioner from the date of completion of five years in service, on or before 25.11.1993, for the purpose of his pension and pensionary benefits. However, he shall not be entitled to actual monetary benefits for the said period, in the form of arrears of pay or allowance. " c) 0 3 5 SN, J wP 23403 2019 I I "(7) G.O. till today, The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants. 8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefrt of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not iustified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeat by directing that the appellants' services be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous seruice as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/Chalrpercon & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) scc 480." D. "The petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2019 on attaining the age of superannuation. On examining the matter, it is apparent that the then Executive Officer has submitted the proposal which is mentioned in the reference 5s cited relying upon -the G.O.Ms.No.212 (Finance & Planning) . Department, dt.22.O4.L994 which is not applicable to the employees working in the temples/institutions. The personnel working in temples/institutidns were being governed by G.O.Ms.No'1478 Rev.(Endts.VI) Department, dt.17.11,1986 and subsequently by G.O.Ms.No.888, Rev.(Endts-I) .Depaftment, dt.08.12.2000. Though the G.O.Ms.No.212 (Finance & Planning) Department, dt. 22.04.1994 is not applicable, the request of the petitioner 6 SN, J wP 23403 2019 and other was examined and rejected by the Executive Officer vide his Rc.No.B1l210O/1996, dt.05.12.1998 as they were not fulfilled the guideline and conditions presc(bed in G.O.Ms.No.212 (Finance & Planning) Departm€nt, dt. 22.O4.L994." E. The Recommendation made in favour of the "It is submitted to the Commissioner in the Swamivari temple as per reference 1 to 6 as per orders already completed the 5 years service of NMR due to that the fourth class employees of their posts would be regularization purpose the said employees they wee discharging their duties properly as per the Government G.O.No.212 dt. 24.04.1994 their services already completed of 5 years services from that date onwards their services would be regularization purpose without doing their services regularization the Commissionert orders dt.19.11.1999 from that onwards their services were regularized due to that their services would be accepted in the Srisailam devasthanam in that as per this regularized employees services as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dt. 24.O4.L994 already five years of their services completed from that date onwards their services were regularized due to that revised orders were issued, hence their services of this temple as per GO Ms.No.212 F&P(FWDC.111) orders dt.24.4.1994 as per five years service already completed from that date onwards their services be regularization purpose they have requested as per reference 7 mentioned above and also filed their representations. The temple has no financial burden on that basis that from 19.11.1999 only the financial payments only services be taken into consideration due to that a decision would be taken that on 3.7.1998 that on the meeting was held by the Dharmakarthala (Managing committee) meeting and also agenda be mentioning purpose the managing committee has been be verified the same and as per Srisailam Devasthanam already taken decision as per G.O.MS.No.212 FWDC.111 department dt. 24.4.1994 as per from 19.11.1999 the fourth class employees services be regularization the NMR of their services those who are started their employment and completed five years services from that date onwards their services were regularization purpose the managing committee already approved through resolution No.133 dt. 3.7.2003. The said resolution copy has been enclosed herewith for your 7 SN, J wP_23403_201 9 i perusal. On 19.11,1999 already regularized NMR's particulars on the below mentioned:- S.No. The name of Regularised Date of Candidates the 1911-1999 Joining completed date 5 years

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. L4, 15. Kum. A.Nagamani Sri V.Venkateswara Rao smt. F.Yakamma Smt. K.Mangatayaru Sri A.Srinivasa Reddi Sri L.Saibaba Sri K.Srinivasa Rao Smt. A.Chellyamma Sri P.Srinvas Rao Sri K. Venugopal Smt. B.Seetharatnam Sri B.Ramesh Babu Smt. K.Muthayamma Smt. T. Janakayamma Smt. G.Jayamma 1-B-1990 11-8-1990 27-8-t990 30-8-1990 6-10-1990 20-L2-L990 14-1-1991 t-7-199L L4-t-t992 t-3-L992 9-3-1992 t-Lt-L992 t-tL-L992 6-t2-L992 4-7-t993 1-8-1995 11-8-1995 27-8-L995 30-8-1995 6-10-1995 20-t2-L995 14-1-1996 L-7-t996 t4-t-1997 t-3-t997 9-3-1997 t-tt-1997 r-tt-L997 6-12-t997 4-7-L998 As per the above particulars and as per references 1 to 6 as per the orders and also the Managing Committee resolution as per that on 19-11-1999 the fourth class employees posts regularization of the above mentioned persons the NMR services and as pe. G.O.Ms.No.212 F&P(FWDC.111) department as per orders fiom 24-4-1994 they were completed five years services as NMR from that date onwards Monitory benefits payment without that only their services only has been taken into consideration due to that for their services be regularization the revised orders for issuance due to that approval orders be issued. Yours sincerelY, Sd/- Executive Officer." l o n 8 SN, J wP 23403 2019

6. I ,1 n n n "This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the recommendations made by the 3'd respondent on 20.07.2003 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order".

7. A bare perusal of the order impugned vide Memo. in. Rc. No.Bll3l7ll2Ol9, dated O3.O8.2O19 passed by the respondent No.2 indicates that the said order is passed mechanically, placing reliance to the earlier proceedings dated 05.12.1998 issued by the Executive Officer without examining the subiect issue as directed by this Coutt vide its order dated 11.O2.2O1g passed in W.P. No.2514 of 2O19. This Court opines that the clear recommendations 9 wP 23403;lolii made in favour of the petitioner vide RC.No. BL 134621 2oo3, dated 2o.ot .2oog by the Ex€cutive officer, sri Seetharamachandraswamivari Temples, Bhadrachalam to the commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments Department, Government of Andhra pradesh, Tilak Road, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad, had been totally ignored while passing the order impugned vide Memo.Rc.No.B1l3L7tlzol9, dated 03.o9.2019 while rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularization with effect from 14.09.1974 and for duty reteasing the pentionary benefits due to the petitioner as per petitioner's legal entiflement. Hence, this court opines that the said order impugned in the present writ petition vide Memo. Rc. No. Btl gtll,lzotg, dated o3;og.2o19 of the respondent No.3 in rejecting the proposats for 3.d respondent for regularization of the petitioners services retrospectively communicated vide proceedings Memo.in Rc.No.BL/317112(J19, dated O3.O8.2O19 of respondent No.2 need to be set aside and the matter needs to be reconsidered afresh. , ?t l0 SN, J wP 23403 20t9 The Aoex Couft in the iudoment reDo r'ted in 2O22 8 Cf l- 6nlina Sf 2?2in Gr rrril l(rrrrrer Dri P ha..c lrc C+-+a of Bihar & Others dt. 2L.O2 .2O22 at Paras 7, 8, 10, 11, observed as under: Para 7; Article 32 of the Constitution provides for a Fundamental Right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of the Fundamental Rights. The founding fathers contemplated that the very right to approach this Court when there is a violation of Fundamental Rights, should be declared as beyond the reach of Parliament and, therefore, it is as a part of judicial review that the right under Article 32 has been put in place and invoked from time to time. That in a given case, the Court may refuse to entertain a petition under Afticle 32 of the Constitution is solely a part of selfrestraint which is exercised by the Court having regard to various considerations which are germane to the interest of justice as also the appropriateness of the Court to interfere in a particular case. The right under Article 32 of the Constitution remains a Fundamental Right and it is always open to a person complaining of violation of Fundamental Rights to approach this Cou(. This is, no doubt, subject to the power of the Couft to relegate the party to other proceedings. Para 8 : At the heart of the Constitution lies certain principles which have, in fact, been recognised as part of the basic structure. Article 14 of the Constitution proclaims right to equality. The right against unfair Stbte action is part of Article 14. Unequals being treated equally is tabooed under Article 14 of the Constitution. A person entitled to be treated as a member of Scheduled Tribe under Article 342, cannot be treated on par with a person .who is brought in by an incompetent Body , viz., the State in the manner done. Article 21 of the Constitution again is the fountain head of many rights which are part of the grand mandate which has been from time to time unravelled by this Court giving rise to the theory of unenumerated rights under the Constitution. While liberty is a dynamic concept capable of encompassing within it a variety of Rights, the irreducible minimum and at the very core of liberty, is freedom from unjustifiable custody. SN, J w 234{3 2019

10. We may take up the first preliminary objection by the State, namely, that the petitioners have approached this Court with considerable delay. The impugned Notification is issued in August,2016. A person cannot be said to be aggrieved merely upon the issuance of an instrument or of a law by itself. In fact, the Court may refuse to examine the legality or the validity of a law or order on the basis that he may have no locus standi or that he is not an aggrieved person. No doubt, the Courts have recognized challenge to even a legislation at the hands of a public interest litigant, However, we may only indicate, ordinarily, the Court may insist on a cause of action and therefore, a person must be an aggrieved party to maintain a challenge. We must not be oblivious to the fact that based on the Notification, it appears that FIRS came to be lodged by persons claiming to be members of the Scheduled Tribe community and seeking to invoke the 1989 Act. The FIRs lodged in the year 2020 occasioned the petitioners to approach Courts seeking protection under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Two of the petitioners have not secured such protection. Petitioner No. 1, it appears was not arrested. But even assuming for a moment, that the petitioners have come with some delay, we find reassurance from the opinion of this Court in the judgment reported in Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha v. Union of India (2015) 3 SCC 1, wherein this Couft has inter alia held as follows: -

32. ".....Further. in Oloa Tellis v. Bombay Municioal Coron., it has now been conclusivelv held that all fundamental riohts cannot be waived iat para 29). Given these important develooments in the law, the time has come for this Court to sav that at least when at comes to violations of the fundamental rioht to life and personal libertv, delay or laches bv itself without more would not be sufficient to shut the door"s of the court on anv oetitioner." 11. Therefore, we do not think we should be detained by the objection. We would think that delay by itself cannot be used as a weAlron to Vetg an action under Article 32 when violation of Fundamental Rights is clearly at stake.

9. A bare perusal of the order itnpugned dated O3.O8.2O19 Vide Memo in Rc.No.Bl t31-7v2Dtg of the t2 SN, J wP 23403 2019 second respondent indicates, in particutar the second last para of the impugned order (referred to and extracted above), that the request of the petitioner for regularization of petitioner,s services w.e.f. 14.Og.1rgg7 duly releasing pensionary benefits had been reiected on the ground that G.O.Ms.No. 212 (finance and planning) dept. dated 22.04.1994 is not applicable to employees working in the temples/ institutions, and further that the request of the petitioner had been examined and rejected by the executive officer Vide his Rc.No.B1l2tOO/tgg6 dated O5.12.1998 as the petitioner had not fulfilled the guidelines and conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.212 (finance and planning) dept. dated 22.O4.1gg4. This Court opines that second respondent unilateratty rejected the request of the petitioner without application of mind in a routine casuat manner without examining the subject issue taking two contrary stands in the very same paragraph contending at the first instance that G.O.Ms.No.212 (finance and planning) dept. dated 22.o4.1994 as not being applicabte to the petitioner in the first part of the said paragraph and further contending It l3 SN, J w 23403 2019 that petitioner did not fulfifl the guidelines of the said G.O.Ms.No.212 (finance and planning) dept..' dated

22.04.1994 at the second part of the very same paragraph (referred to and extracted above). Therefore this court opines that the order impugned dated O3.Og.2Ol9 of the second respondent stands vitiated and hence is liable to be set aside.

10. Takin lnto consid ration: (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing on behalf of respondent Ns.l and 2 and Sri Ch.Satash Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, (c) The contents of the Common Order of this Court dated O2.O5.2O18 passed in W.p. No.33936 of 2O11 and batch, t4 SN, J wP 23403 2019 (d) The contents of the order dated I7.O2.2OOO passed in W.P. No.16516 of 1996 (referred .to and extracted above), (e) The relevant portion of the order dated L[.O2.2OL9 passed in W.P. No.2514 of 2O19 (referred to and extracted above), (f) The contents of the order impugned vide Memo. in. Rc. No. B1l 3l7ll20l9, dated O3.O8.2O19 passed by the respondent No.2, (S) The benefit extended by the Apex Court in the case of B. Srinivasulu V. Nellore Municipal Corporation, and for the reasons alike in the order dated 23.07.2024 passed in W.P. No. 19374 ol 2fJ241 (h) The Apex Court judgment reported in 2O22 SCC Online SC 232 in Sunil Kumar Rai-& Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others (referred to and extracted above), The writ oetition is allowed. The order impugned resoondent is set aside- The matter is remitted to the 2d resoondent to reconsider the reouest of the petitioner to reckon the_servaces of the petitioner from the date of completion of five vears of // /.' .+'' l5 SN, J wP 23403 20t9 service i.e. since 25.11.1993 for the purpose of Detitione/s Dension rrld oensionerv benefits, in accordance to law, in conformitv with orinciples of natural I unitv of oersona! hearinq to the oetitioner, dulv takino into consideration and dulv examinino the documents in suooort of oetitioner's case and also the observations in the Judqments of the various Hiqh Courts referred to and eitracted above, in true spirit of the orders oassed in favour of the oetitioner on an earlier occasion in the W.P.No.2514 of 2O19, filed bv the oetitioner herein, within a oeriod of four (4) weeks from the date of receiot of a coov of the order and dulv communicate the decision to the oetitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG assi5rnr'rTrii6i'srHt / l'3,'Tili!"il'X,,:""fi :lljrlT"rr1,rrf J.R. Manohar Rao', and t as "SriGh. Sarish Kumar', "'j,# ji,,tLhtfutff ffi pJirctt"r-Jiiijii.-oi.zozo This amended order shall substitute the earliei order which has already been dispatchea on'oe.oi26*. "'" ' "= To SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG //TRUE coPY// ASslsrANZEGlsrRAR sEc#N OFFTCER

1. The Principal Secretarv Thc Srara ^f secretariat euiroings?HydT#state Tataa^-- of relangana' Endowments Department, / Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The commissioner of Endowments, state of relangana, Tilak Road, Abids, 3. The Executive_offic.er, sree seetharama chandra swamy Vari .Deva sth a n qr, Khammam District, State of Telangana. F l', ?olg ch a ta m, e h id ri d ii K,;ih;il? ", bidtri-"t, E rstwh i I e \ ,M.

4. one cc to sri Boya Ravinder Reddy, Advocate topucl 5. Two ccs to Gp for Endowments, High court for the state of relangana, at 6. One CC to Sri CH. Satish Kumar, SC tOpUCl 7. Two CD Copies Hyderabad IOUTI TJ TKS/MP / J I / a HIGH COURT DATE i2511112025 l-l \ \ AMENDED ORDER WP.No.23403 of 2 19 0 s O 2 9 JA rtll ?fl2fi * * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ f