[ 3300 ] v. 1. The Diskict Panchayat Officer

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 issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services in the posts of Typists / Computer Operators or any other equivalent categories in terms of orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 16, Finance, dated 26-22016 with all consequential benefits by holding the action of the respondents in seeking to dispense with the services of the petitioner / not permitting to discharge their duties after rendering more than 1 112 decades service on contract basis that too even without passing any orders so as to avoid regularization of the services of the petitioners in terms of the orders of the Government in G.O.lMs.No. 16, Fin., daled 26-2-2016 is as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, c'ruel and inhuman and violative of Articles 1,1' 16 and 21 of the Constitution besideS being opposed to all principles of natural justice, equity and fair plaY l.A. NO: 1 oF 2016 (WPMP. NO: s4039 0F 2016) Petition under liection '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to directtheresponden-.stoContinuethepetitionersinserviceintheirrespective CounselforthePetitioner:SRI.BRAHAMADANDIRAMESHSENIoRCoUNSEL REP Ms. R. SWARNALATHA Gounsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES ll The Court made ther following: ORDER h L wP 43781_2076 NBK, J THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.437El of 2OL 6 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.l passed Graduation and also I)zpewriting English ald Telugu Higher Grade and also Diploma in Computer Applications, and he was originally appointed as Section Writer with effect from 14 .04.1993 on a remnneration of Rs. l2l- per day vide Memo dated 74.04.1993. He was initially appointed as Contract Labour from O1.12.1997 and deputed to work in the District Panchayat Offrce, Nizamabad, vide Memo dated 29.01 .1998 and was orally directed to work as Telugu Typist, and !e worked as such till 31.12.2015. petitioner No.2 passed B.Sc, and also Typewriting English and Telugu Higher Grade and also DCA (Computer Certificate course) and appointed as Typist on contract basis under the control of respondents from O1.O1.20O1 and working as such till date. Petitioner No.3 passed B.Com and Typewriting Lower Grade and DCA (Computers) and was appointed as Computer Operator with effect from 01.01.2O05 on contract basis and working as such. Petitioner No.4 passed Intermediate and PGDCA and appointed as Computer Operator on contract basis with effect from 01 .O 1.2004 and continuing as such. It is their case that they completed more thal ten years of service on contract basis, and there are several existing vacancies of Typists / Computer Operators available under the control of respondents, and the respondents extracted work from the petitioners and the petitioners received salaries directly from the Depar*nent. Petitioners salary on contract basis at Rs.2,O0O/- per month was enhanced from time to time and now they are being \ { l:, 2 wp 437E1_2016 NBK,I paid at Rs.12,0Ot)/- per month' Petitioners contend ttrat they are entitled. to regularization of services, ald the Goverrlment vide GOMs.No.22 dated 13.08.2014 decided to constitute a Committee of Officers to ,:xamine the issue relating to regularization of services, and the Government issued GOMs'No 16' dated 26.02.2016, rnentioning clearly that regularizatiort may be considered onlr, in respect of eligible persons .,r,orking aS on 02.06.2014. It. is alleged that petitioner Nos'l and 3 were not allowed to continue in service while petitioner Nos'2 and 4 are still working. Petilioners contend that they are eligitrie as per GOMs.No.16 dated,26.02.2O16, and they are rendering services for over a decad.e rmd a half, and now they are age-barred and the action of respc,r clent authorities in not allowing petition<:rs 1 and 3 to continue in service and discharge their duties, is illegal' Petitioners re1'y on the judgment of the Hon'lcle Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesaril, and a-1so on State of Karnataka v. Umadevi2, and contend that they are entitled to regularization. They further contend that the respondents are paying only Rs. I2,OOO l- per month whereas they art: entitled to Rs. 15,000/ - per month in terms of the order issued by Government in GOMs.No.14, Finalce Department, dated 19'02'2016'

2.Heardl\ilr.BrahmadandiRamesh,learnedSeniorCounsel appearing on llehalf of Ms. R. Swarnalatha, learned counsel on record for the oetitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Services-Il Perused the record' 12010 (9) scc 247 , 2006 (4) scc 1 :. () 3 wp 43781 2016 NB(,I

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, would mainly contend that the petitioners a-re duly qualihed and have been working in respective posts on contract basis for over a decade and they are eligible for regularization as per Umadevi (supra), and further they are eligible as per GOMs.No.16 dated 26.Q2.2016, and the respondents in spite of available vacancies a-re not regularizing the services of the petitioners.

4. karned Government Pleader, on the basis of counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1, would submit that as per GO(P) No.112, Finance and Planning (FW.PC-III) Dept., dated 23.O7.1997, the Government has taken a decision that services of persons who worked continuously as part time workers for a minimum of ten years and continuing as on 25. 1 1. 1993 would be regularized by the appointing authorities subject to the condition that absorption shall be against clear vacancies, and the persons should possess necessary qualifications, and the persons should be within age lirnit as on the date of appointment as part time ernployee. And, as per GOMs.No.2l2, dated 22.04.1994, regularization of services of individuals who worked continuously for a minimum period of Iive years and continuing as on 25. 11.1993 would be regularized. It is submitted that petitioner No.1 was appointed on 14.04.1993, and his case was examined with reference to GOMs.No.212, and GO(P) No.112, and observed that he is not eligible for regularisation as he did not have minimum working period of 5 years and 10 years respectively as on 25.11.1993. Further, petitioner Nos.2, 3, and 4 were engaged purely on adhoc basis orally to run ofhce administration and they are not eligible for regularization. It is statq! that the petitioners are falsely stating that they were \ 4 wp_43781_2016 NBK,J i' appointed on oontract basis, and they have not 6;iven any appointment ot.ders by the Government or District Panchilyat office and they do ,n ct have acquittalces' It is submitted that the petitionerswer.eappointedorallyandnotoncontractbasisand thereforeGoMs.No.22dated13'08.2o14isnotapplicable.Itis statedthataspt:rGOMs.No.16dated26'O2'20'tr6,theGovernment may regularize the services of persons appointed on contract basis against sanctioned posts subject to fulfilment of para (b) thereof' and regularizaliion would be considered only in respect of persons appointed on f-utl time contract basis on monthlv remuneration. It is stated that no such alleged proposals of petitioners zrre pending before the Gov,:t'nment. ItissubrnittedthatduringreorganizationofDistrict,allthe regular staff vrorking in the offices of District Panch,ayat office, Bodhan and Nizamabad, were deputed to District Panch ayat Office, Nizamabad and both the Divisional Palchayat officer:s were not functional. Pet.iljoner Nos.1 and 3 working on ora,l instructions in the offices of Divisional Panchayat Ofhces, Nizamabad an d Bodhan, and they have relinquished duties due to personal issttes and it is false to state thzrt they were not permitted to discharge t.heir duties. It is further s rbmitted that in January, 2O2O, the Divisional palchayat Off.ices became functional and the services rlf petitioner No.1 is being rrtilized orally as computer operator with effect from 26.09.2O2O after lapse of hve years and since then he is working' Petitioner No.l3 has been appointed as Mandal Level Data Entry Operator on outsourcing basis under Rashtriya Grzm Swar4i Abhiyan Scherne in January 2O2O and since then she is working in Varni Maldal c,f Nizamabad District under the control of Mandal p. 5 wp_43781 2Ot6 NBIC J Panchayat officer, Varni. It is submitted that petitioners zrre not eligible for consideration under Umadevi (supraf. It is submitted that Government has not issued any notification for recruitment of eligible persons for the posts of tlpists/computer operators in the office of 1.t respondent in terms of GOMs.No.22 dated. 13.08.2014. petitioner Nos. 1, 2, ald 4 are working as computer operators in the oflices of Divisionar Panchayat Offrce, Nizamabad and District panchayat Office, Nizamabad, and petitioner No.3 is working as Mandal Level Data Entry Operator at Mandal parishad Development Office, Vami, under the control of Mandal panchayat Officer, and getting monthly remuneration from Grarnpanchayats without any appointment orders. It is submitted that as per GOMs.No.16, dated,26.02.2016, the Government may regularize the services of persons appointed on contract basis against sanctioned posts in the Government, subject to availability of post in relevant category in respective department, and regularization may be considered only in respect of persons appointed on full-time contract basis on monthly remuneration, ald regularization may be considered only in respect of eligible persons working as on O2.06.2014 immediately before the formation of relanga,a State, and the petitioners have not been appointed by the Government in duly salctioned posts, and they do not have any right for regularization of services. 5. Having considered respective submissions, and perusing the record, it may be noted that the material papers frled in support of the contention of the petitioners would show that the Government vide memo dated 29.01 . 1998 labour in Gram Panchayat Yellareddy. Further, Certificates dqfSd as contract the Serrrice I \ !: ']t .a 6 wp,43781-2016 NBK, J 11 No.2 would show that he '*'orked as |4.O2.2OOT of F)etitloner , and Petitioner N'l.4 worked Computer Operator from 2001 to 2OO7 07. Further, the Proceedings as Computer Opt:rator from2OO4 to20 ad, dated 23.11.2C)13 would of District Panchayat Officer' Nizamab d and entrusted 1.he work of show that the petitioners were depute computerizatio:n / verification work in the District Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad, frorn 24'11'2013' Likewise' the proceedings dated15.o8.20].5oftheDistrictPanchayatofficer,Nizamabad, also show that the petitioners were allotted to work in the Grama Jyothi Program in the grampanchayats' Similar orders dated t Officer, NizamabacL, detailing 31.10-2015 of the District Panchaya the petitioners on turn duties' petitioners have b€:en dePuted it canrrot be disPuted that the 6. uter OPerator/TYPi.st etc', and to work in gra.rr: palchayat as Comp their engagement in service dates back to 1998' 2OO1 ' 2OO4 etc' Further, consistently since 2013' they can be seen to have been used in variottsr services like Grama Jyothi prograrnme ' and turn duties as sho'wn in the a'forestated Orders issued by the District Panchayat OIfice' Further, the GOMs'No'16 dated t26'O2'2O16 clearly stipulates that the services of persons appointed 'ln contract basis against sanctioned posts in the Government would be regolaized, stLtrject to certain conditions services for nrore than a 7. Petitionr:rl have been rendering decade by the' date of issuance of GOMs'No' 16' dated il'6'O2'2016' Even assuming that they were off-work due to non-fi'Lnctioning of District Panchayat Offrce for a while, it cannot be disputed that their services have been utilized as necessa-ry consistently for a period spanning over a decade. It is not the case of the respondents / / 7 wp_43747 2076 NBK,.I that the petitioners have refused ald not reported for work even though they were offered work. More particularly, the proceedings of District Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad, dated 23.11.2013 would show that the petitioners were deputed to work on computerization/verification work in the District panchayat Officer, Nizamabad. Furthermore, the petitioners are duly qualilied to work in their respective roies even as on the date of their contractual service, and they have been working in the hopes of regularization attending to the office requirements of the respondents. Even as per proceedings dated 23.1I.2013, it cannot be disputed that they were in service and continuing as on 02.06.2014, and therefore the case of the petitioners for regttlarization as per GOMs.No. 16 dated 26.02.2O16 cannot be denied.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners as per GOMs.No.16, dated 26.02.2016 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. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stald closed. //TRUE COPY// AS SD/- T. TIRUMALA DEVI T NT REGISTRAR // s CTION OFFICER To, I l ':. Telangana, HYderabad. Secretariat, T.S.,HYderabad

1. The District Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad' Nizamabad District' 2. +ii; 6i;i;i;i boii.Ciditpwl, Ni2amabad, Nizamabad District' 3. The commissioner fo, H;;:-h;v;i nii Hural' Emplovment' state of 4. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department' 5. fi; "Cc 6' rvr.. R. SWAnruALArHA, Advogale [oPUCl 6. i;; 66iio" op FoR sEFi\ib'id'ii, iish c.irt for the state of relangana, 7. Two CD CoPies BM GJP ?*- at Hyderabad [OUT] 'na CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:2010212025 I irTS QF !_) ) ") C) b t t 4 N$,s, -.rf ?' ''- -,.' t)/ D E I ORDER WP.No.43781 of 2016 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (A- c) S l,'