Greater derabad Municipa orooration, Hvderabad reD. bv its Co mmissioner v. G.Amarsimha Reddv others, at Dara s

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court r ray be pleased pleasedtodirectrespondentstofixandpayFamilyPensiontotnelstpetitioner hereinbyconsideringtherepresentationmadebythelstpetitionerdated 16.04.2C24 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.JAGADISH Counsel for the Respondents No.1&3 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN LIIRBAN DEV CounselfortheRespondentsNo.2:ASST'GPFORFINANCE6'PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI RAMESH CHILLA, . (sc FoR SERVICE MATTERS OF ALL MUNICIPALITIES; TELANGANA) The Court made the following: ORDER t t HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WR T PETITION No.483 of 2022 ORDER: Heard Sri S. Jagadish, learned counsel appearing on behalf of deceased petitioner No.1 and his tegal representatives, who are impleaded as petitioner Nos.2 to 5 as per the order of this Court dated 11.03.2025 in I.A. No.l of 2024 in W.P. No.483 of 2022, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3, learned Assistant Government pleader for Finance and Planning, appearing.on behalf of respondent No.2 and Sri Ramesh Chilla, Iearned Standing Counse! for Service Matters of all Municipalities, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4,

2. The Detitioners Sri B Ravinder, a pproached this Court bv filino the oresent writ oetitio W.P. No. 483 of 2022 s ekino oraver as under: "...to issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner though sanctioned minimum pay of last grade 2 wP 483 ?llii with usual allowances as long back as on 5_10.1995 w.e.f. 1-10-1995 on the sole ground that he has not completed 1B years of age as on the date cf his appointment as NMR as void, iltegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the responlents to regularize the services of the petitioners with ,:ffect from the date of completion of 5 years of servicet from the cut-off date prescribed in G.O.Ms. No.212 dated 22_ 04-7994 as Water Supply Worker with all consequr_.ntial benefits by taking into consideration of the orders p;rssed in writ petition in W. p. No. 33936 of 2011 and batch dated O2/O5/2018 and pass...,,

3. The writ petition was filed initially by one lvlr.B.Rav nder who had died and the petitioners 2,3, 4 and.5 had been br.ougti-t on record as legal representatives of petitioner No.1 as per Ci)urt order dated 11.03.2025 vide I.A.No.1 of 2024.

4. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the ,leceased petitioner No.1 was appointed as NMR as Water Suppl,r Worker on 01.07.1987. The 1st respondent sanctioned minimurn pay of last grade with usual allowances w.e.f. 01.10.199S vide proceedings dated 05.10.1gg5. As per the service Register of the deceased petitioner, his date of birth is 0g.05.1973 and his date of appointment is dated 01.10.1995. The 4th res;pondent had not permitted the deceased petitioner to cischarge his duties t-l J SN, J wP 483 2022 as N.M.R and had not paicl the salaries. Aggrieved by the action of the 1't respondent in not permitting the deceased first petitioner to continue in duty and not paying the salaries due to the deceased 1st petitioner, the deceased 1lt petitioner had filed the present writ petition.

5. It is further the case of the petitioners that in spite of repeated requests of the petitioners 2 to 5 and the representation of the deceased 1st petitioner dated 07.4.202t addressed to the respondent No.1 to permit the 1st petitioner to continue in service and regularize the service of the I't petitioner, during 1st petitioner,s lifetime the respondents had not regularized the services of rate B. Ravinder on the sore ground that the petitioner No.1 had not completed 18 years of age as on the date of the appointment of the 1st petitioner as NMR.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the plea taken by the respondents herein in denying regularization of services of late B Ravinder, though he had been sanctioned minimum pay of last grade with usual allowances way back on 05.10.1995 w.e.f. 01.10.1995 is that 1 4 SN, J wP 483 2022 the said deceased employee late B. Ravinder had not rendered the minimum required service of 5 years as on the cut:-off date i.e., 25.11.1993 after attaining the age of 1B years and [he same is contrary to the law laid down by the judEment of Division Bench of this Court datcd 26.04.2013 passed in W.P. No. 6804 of 20L3. PERUSE D THE RECORD

7. Counter a idavit had been filed on bt:half of o.4. in oarticular oara Nos.5 anrl 7 are respond ent extracted hereunder: "6. It is submitted that the Govt. In G.O.RI. No. 1472, MA&UD Dept, dated 17-17-201L, issued orders according permission to the Director of Municipal administratic n to regularize the services of 12 NMRs, out of 13 NMRS, ilr the posts indicated against their names from the date of issue of orders bv competent appointing authority subject to condition that the said vacancies are clear, regular and continued from time to time till date and no senior el gible person is ove rlooked/om itted. In respect of the Petitioner, it is mentioned therein that "the remaining one individu.l i.e. Sri B. Ravinder is not elioible for reoularization of his se rv ces as the individual has not rendered the t-off on th inino the aoe of 18 date ie.25-11-1993 after atta vears". mre uired s tJ 5 SN, J w 483 2022

7. It is submitted that aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner filed O.A. No.7L4l20l3 for redressal. The Hon'ble APAT in order dated 4-lO-20L3 directed the respondent to consider the case of tlte applicant for regularization as per G.O.Ms.No. 212, F&P dated 22-4-1994 and pass appropriate orders according to the rules. Subsequently, the petitioner filed C.A. No. 4L9/2074 in the said O.A. In the Procs. No. Cl/3852/2O12, dated 4-4-2OL4 of the Commissioner, Municipatity Sangareddy, issued a speaking order, among other things, that the DIea of the aDDlicant is herebv reiected as he was not withirr the aoe limit i.e. 18 r t h ea rq as n the date of aon h G,O.Ms.N dated 22-4-1994. Hen ce, the C.A. No. L9l2Ol4 and o.A. No. 714l2OL3 were closed on -11-2()15 as comDlie d with". irl,larrt ac NM R 8 The Division Bench of this Court an its Judoment t

26.O4. in W.P. No. 6804 of 2 Greater derabad Municipa orooration, Hvderabad , reD. bv its Co mmissioner. Vs. G.Amarsimha Reddv & others, at Dara s 10 of Division Bench observed as under: "In this writ petition, it is vehemently contended by Smt. A. Deepthi, learned counsel for petitioner that as much as the 1't respondent is claiming the benefit of regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.O4.t994, he is not eligible for regularization, as he has not fulfilled the eligibility criteria I 6 SN, J wP 483 2022 as notified in the aforesaid G.O. It is stated that as pe r the conditions notified in G.O.Ms. No.212, one shoulrlbe he date of appointmerrt as within the aqe limit as o NMR/dailv waoe emDlovee, butasthe ls resoon dent was m i no r at that point of time, it cannot besaid that his aoe was within the aoe limit on the date ol' his a oooi ntme nt as NM R. The learned counsel has reli:d on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of A.Marrjula Bhashini & others V. Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Women's Cooperative Fin a nce Corporation Limited & another , in support of her argument that notifying the cut-off date as 25.11.1993 for grant of regularization, is upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On the other hand, it is submitted by the le;rrned counsel appearing for the l't respondeht that as it ls not in dispute that the 1st respondent was engaged initially on 01.06.1988, it is not open for the petitioner to deny regularization at this point of time, on the ground that her was minor as on the date of his initial appointment. It is submitted that as the 1't respondent is in continLtous service, and as he is aged 39 years and belongs to 'OC' community, he will not get any other alternative employment, at this stage, fcr eking out his livelihooa and there is no other source of income to llim. It is submitted that having availedtheservicesof 1't respo nd ent for this long, it is not open for the petitioner-Corporation to reject his clairn for regularization, It is further submitted that in any e,rent, there lvere earlier orders passed by the Government for regularization after completion of five years, in G.O.Ms.No.1320, dated 15.12.1981 and G.O.t'ls.No 300, $, 7 wP-483:ilii dated 24.06.1985, as such, even without reference to the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, respondent is entitled for regularization. It is submitted by the learned counsel that when directions were issued for regularization in similar cases by extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1320, dated 15.12.1981, such orders are confirmed by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and in that view of the matter, there is no merit in the writ petition so as to interfere with the directions issued by the Tribunal. In this case, it is not in dispute that the 1't respon d ent/a pplica nt was initially engaged as NMR with effect from 01.06.1988 in the erstwhile Rajendranagar Municipality and his services were terminated with effect from 01.01.2000. In view of the award passed by the Labour Court after remand, direction5 were issued for his reinstatement with continuity of service and back-wages. Though this Court has partly allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.20439 of 2009, to the extent of back- wagesr as much as he is reinstated pursuant to the interim directions and as the award of the Tribunal is confirmed to the extent of the directions issued by Labour Court for reinstatement and continuity of servlce, he is entitled to claim the benefit of continuity of service from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 01.06.1988. It is true that the Government has issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.O4.1994 to regularize the services subject to certain conditions notified. fn the instantcase, the onlv . reason for reiection of the ctaim of l't resoonde t/aDDlicant is that he has out-in onlv 4 Years 1 month a d 21 davs of serv ice as on cut-off date i.e, -t 8 SN, J wP 483 2022

25.11.1993 , but at the saEle time, it is not in dis pute that he is continuously in service from 01,06.1989 till date, and has out-in nearlv 23 vears of service as on this date. It is also to be noticed that such cond tions notified for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212, <iated 22.04.1994, imposing cut-off date as 25.11.1993. is upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Manjula Bhashini & others (supra), but as this Court is of the view that such condition is imposed only under G.O.Ms.No,212, dated 22.04.7994. and even without reference to the said G.O., the 1" respondent herein is entitled for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.1320, dated 15.12.1981 and G.O.14s.No.300. dated 24.06.1985. As such, basing on the aforesaid judgment relied on by the learned counsr:l for petitioner; the claim of the lst respondent cannot be rejected. Further, in adentical circumstances, iO the order, dated 18.O4.2OO3 , oassed in O. .No.28715 of nistrative Tribunal has situated as that of the l't resDondent, were ent for reoulari zation much :of lssua nc( G.O.Ms. No.212- dated 22.04.1994. as SU ch- thev entitled for the benefit of reoulariz tion urrder G.O.Ms. o.L32 E A.P. Ad ca nts and bat 15-1 2.1981 rior t who w datecl

6.198 .No,14 .O.Ms.N orders oassed bv the Tribunal. writ oetition r; ln atch were filecl bv the Gove rnment, a nd when the s , the matters were carried to the Sunre$te Court in ,Civil Aooeal No.35 67o an d bv ord erd f 20r)2 !1 9 SN, J wP 483 2022 a c c 11 on' o4 r b The learned counsel for petitioner has also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Ccurt in Civil Appeal No.32t5 of 2002, arising out of SLp (Civil) No.8898 of 2001, wherein, the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court is set aside, but the same is considered with reference to the A.p. Electricity Board's Regulations with regard to regularization of services of its employees framed under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. In this case, it is not in dispute that the 1st respondent is working in the Municipal Corporation and as it is also not in dispute that the earlierorders issued by the Municipal Administration Department in G.O.Ms.No.1320, dated 15.12.1981 and G.O.Ms.No.300, dated 24.06.1985, were in force, and in view of the further jldgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3567 of 2006, dated 26.O4.2Ot1, we are of the view that precisely, the subject matter of the writ petition is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3567 of 2006, and in that view of the matter, we do no find a vmerit in o r h n r n r1 3 NMR asrs. h e st u s For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid oF merit and it is accordingly.dismissed. However. petitioneris granted six weeks time from today to comply with the directions of the Tribunal and to issue appropriate orders in the matter. No costs,,. '1 I 10 a' SN, J wP 483 2021.

9. The Division Bench of this Co rt in its l udoment dated 28.1L.2OL7 passed in W.P. No. 33936 of 2O1 lin vernment of A b its Pr RD Deoa rtment, Hvderabad and others v. N.Venk a-lah and others. at Dara Nos.SO to 53 of the said Divisicln Bench Judom nt, observed as under: "50. As a readv Dointed out- when no re u !ar exercise was ever u nd erta ken in anv Department to osition so as to imnrediatelv assess the vacancv extend ben efit to those covered bv G.O.Ms.trlo.2L2,it te to now co me forvrrard and is not Den to the sav that there were no vacancles as on the rlate that the emnlovees in o uestion comDlet five vears in service, on orb efore 25.11.1993. A mere asseftion in this regard is nothing short of an r.rnsupported s€:lf-serving ipse dixit on the part of the State and its instru nrenta lities and cannot be accepted at face value. Further, tfe facts in some of the cases on hand clearly demonstrate that despite clear vacancies being available, no timely steps urcre taken. Further. when such mDlov ees were retained in service for decades necessitv to con Inue h manifest and clea rlv rler-nonstrated, requ irinq no further evidence. In such a situation where the State and its instrumentalities are i'esponsible for the situatron rvhere it cannot be assessed ndw as to .ghether Conditicn No.5 in s er th w q 1r SN, J \,\'P 483 2022 G.O.Ms.No.212 stood fulfitled 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 thg Supreme Court in B.Srinivasulu (1 supra), 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.

51. The question of the State Exchequer being saddled with additional expenditure in relation to such regularisation does not arise, as the relief already granted to some of the employees in the cases on hand is to reckon their services 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 Court. s for dec the State ether ext n instrum e to them the benefit of uch service onlv for the r e said n n I one us state or the State Exch uer. Havino utilised their services all a lono, the State and its instru menta lities cannof now turn their back on the loval services d bv these em lovees. enefits c ither on t '':.I " ..-$ '.raiatta'tl"_ I t2 C SN, J w 481 2022

52. The learned Government pleader would ,:lso point out that some of the O.A.s/writ petitions were filed with substantial delay after the regularization orcers were passed, giving the benefit of G.O.Ms.NO.212 \ ,ith effect from the stipulated dates therein prospectively. Sre would assert that such setued matters should not be unsetued merely because the Supreme Court passed the subsequent order in B.Srinivasulu (1 supra). It may horryever be noticed that the trajectory of developments :since the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.212, as set out herr:inbefore, demonstrates that there was no consistency ev:n 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 demonstrates that the Tribunal gave the benefit of B.SRINIVASULU 1 to some and denied it to others. In such a fluid and unceftain situation, an employee cannot be blamed for seek:ing relief even after lapse of some years as there was no :larity as to the legal position. As the Sup reme Cou rt has now settled the same B.Srinivasu lu(1 s u pra ). emDlov s who comn! eted five vears of serv ICe On or before 25.11.1!)93 and were alread v reoul rised in servic with rosoecti ve oachino benefit of thei r ast servtce in ter sof G.O.Ms .N o,.212 at least for the limited ouroose of their pension and oensionarv benefits. bv wav ofi ts d ecision r l3 SN, J wP 4E3 2022

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 this batch of cases by reckoning their services from the date of completion of five years in service, on or before 25.11.L993, for the purpose of their pension and pensionary benefits. They shall however not be entifled to actual monetary benefits for the said period, in the form of arrears of pay or allowances.

10. The lear ed co u nsel a ooea rtnq on beh lf of d 23 20 P o 4 o u the iudqm ent of the D tvlston Benc of thi Cou reDo ed o 8 36 LT 20 D a d o n

5.2 8 t e w e case.

11. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents placing reliance on the averments made in the counter afFidavit filed.on behalf of respondent No.4, contends that late B. Ravinder was not eligible for regularization of services since the said individual had not rendered the minimum required service of five years as on the cut_off date i.e. .,.<-r I 14 C SN, J wP 483 2022

25.11.1993 after attaining the age of 1B years. Th€r learned Standing Counsel further submits that in view of the fact: that the petitioner had filed I.A. No.1 of 2025 in the present wrir petition seeking a direction to the respondents to cons der the petitioners' latest representation dated 16.04.2024 addt.essed to the 3'd respondent herein and the writ petition could be disposed of directing the respondent No.3 to consider the grievan:e of the petitioners as put Forth in the present writ petition and also I.A. No.1 of 2025 filed by the petitioners herein seeking ,a specific direction to consider the representation of the 1't petitioner dated 16.04.2024 for payment of Farnjly pension to the 1't petitioner herein. The said representation dated 76.04 2024 of the lst petitioner herein addressed to the 3d respondert herein pertains to 1st petitioner's request for sanction of payment of Family Pension as per the Rule 51 (B) of the Revised pension Rules and the prayer in the present writ petiticn pertains to request of the petitioners for regularization of services of late Sri B. Ravinder by duly taking into consideration the fact that tfie said late B. Ravinder had been sanctioned minimum parz of last grade with usual allowance on 5.10.i995 w.e.f.01.10.1995. This Court opines that in view of the fact that the reques;t of the t5 SN, J wP 483 2022 petitioner for regularization of services was rejected only on the ground that late B. Ravinder had not rendered the minimum required service of 5 years as on the cutoff date i.e., 25.11.1993 after attaining the age of 18 years, and the said plea having been decided by this Court as untenable by Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 26.04.2023 passed in W.p. No, 6804 of 2013 (referred to and extracted above), this Court opines that the petitioners herein are entifled for the relief of consideration of 1st petitioner's representation dated L6.04.2024 for sanction of payment of family pension addressed to the 3.d respondent and the request of the petitioners for regularization of services of late Sri B. Ravinder w.e.f. the date of completion of 5 years of service From the cutoff date prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.L994 as water supply worker with all consequential benefits duly taking into consideration the orders passed in W.P.No.33936 of 2011 and batch dated 02.05.2019 and the Judgment dated 26.04.2013 passed in W.p.No.6g04 of

12. Takino into consideration : (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, : i I I I ! ! t6 a SN, J wP 483 2022 (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing oli bohalf of the respondent No.4, (c) The averments made in the affidavit filed by the 1"t petitioner filed in suppcrt of I.A. No.1 of 2O2S in the present Writ Petition No. 483 ol .2O?-2, (d) The judgment dated 23.L!.ZO2O passed in W.p. No. 20954 of 2O2O and the tuagnrent dated 02.r)5.2018 passed in W.P. I{o. 33936 of 2011 and Batch, the Judgment reported in 2O18 (4) ALT 6 (D.B), dated

02.O5.2018 of this Court in Government of A.p., rep by its Principal Secretary, PR and RD Department, Hyrlerabad and V.N. Venkaiah and others and the Judgnrent of Division Bench of this Court dated 26.O4.2OL3 parssed in W.P. No. 68O4 of 2O13, The writ petition is disposed of dirccting the respondents to consider the request of the petitioners, for regularization of services of late Sri B. Ravinder, urho was sanctioned minimum pay of last grade with usual altowances on 05.10.1995 w.e.f. 01.10.1995 and passed \ 17 SN, J wP 483 2022 away on 31,O1.2023, under tleenred regutarization by duly taking into consideration the vierv of the Division Bench of this Court dated 2G.O4.2O1J passetl in W.p.. No.68O4 of . the Judgment clated 2&.t1.2}t7 passed in 2013, W.P.No.33936 of 2011 duly considering'the 1st petitioner,s representation dated 16.04.2024 for payment of family pension to the 1"t petitioner in accordance to law, and pass appropriate orders by providing an opportunaty of personal hearing to the petitioners herein and,decide the said subject issues, within a period of four (O4) weeks from the*date o.f receipt,gf.the copy of the order and duly communicat. #e-,..r:rsion to the petitioners herein. ,tn" r.;1, However, there shalt be no orrler as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ petition shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-A. PRATHIMA PUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER The Principal secretary, Muriicipar Administration and Urban Deverooment uepanment, State of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ' lfg^elrlcrOaf Secretary. Finance and ptanning Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana. Hyderabad. The Conrmissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, State of Telangana, Masab Tank. Hyderabad. ffrg Commissroner, Sangareddy Municipality, Sangareddy, Sangareddy District. One CC_to SRI S.JAGADISH. A.ovocate tOpUCl Pn- To, 1 ) 3 4 5 '.--;.;-..-**::M t) Two CCs to GP FOR IVCPL ADIVN URBAN DEV, High Cour. for the State of Telangana. [O[JT] Two CCs to GP FOR FINANCE & PLANN|NG, Hiqh Court for.the State of Telangana al llyderabad. [OUT] One CC to SRI RAMESH CHTLLA (SC FOR SERVTCE TVATTERS OF ALL MUNICIPALITiES TELANGANA) TOPUC] Two CD Copres I BSK BS (tr \ 7 8 I !... HIGH COURT DATED:1010412A25 CC TODAY l ) L o , I-€l_ .9 s L' + o t! \\ lcrx * ORDER WP.No'483 at 2022 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOI.'T COSTS u5 T .',, f ( ',i.it