High Court · 2025

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to call for the records from the respondents and issue an appropriate writ order or direction particularly one in nature'of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner's husband for regularizing the service on par with other employees and also not sanctioning the pension ..is arbitrary' discriminatory and contrary to law in violative of principles of natqral iustice' not bonafide' amounts to unfair labour practice and violative of article 14' 16 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and grant all consequences of benefits ' l.A. NO 10F 2017(WP MP. NO:5131 50F20 171 Petition under Section in the affidavit filed in support direct the respondents to sanc disposal of above writ petition irreparable loss. 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to tion the family pension and other benefits, pending and otherwise lwould put to serious hardship and t.A. NO: 2 oF 2017(WPMP. NO: 51316 OF 20171 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents to regurarize the service of petitioners husband as recommended by the 2nd respondent in proceedings dated .18_0.1-20.1 7, pending disposar of the above writ petition and forthwith and otherwise r wourd put to serious hardship and irreparable loss. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES_II The Court made the following: ORDER /, 1 wp-41348-2017 NBK, J THE H ON 'BL w ESRTJ USTICEN AG ES HB HE EM KA PETI TIO NN o.41 348 of2 017 The petitioner is the wife of Mr' K' Venkater oRDER: 'a '" Lr \/enkateshwarlu' who was a daily wager,NMR in the Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corporation (now defunct). The averments in the '*'rit affidavit are to the effect that Mr' K' Venkateshwatt''' if'"t"i*t"r' referred to as the "workman') joined the Corporation on 07'07'19 77 and was terminated from service on 06.08.1979' Chatlenging the termination Orders' the workman raised an lndustrial Dispute in t'D'No'105 of 1990 before the Labour Court' and the Labour Court passed an Au'ard dated 26'05'1994 directing reinstatement of the workman' with all consequential benefits and backwages' The ohallenged the Award by fiting W'P'No'2620 of 1995 before tl-ris Court' This Court' by Order dated 26'06'1997 disposed the writ petition by upholding the reinstatement of the u'orkman' but the direction insof-ar as payment of backwages' was set aside' Thereafter'' the workman was reinstated on 12'11'1998' The workman expired on 17.0g.2006. consequent to his demise, the petitioner herein/wife approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal' by filing O.A.No.688 of 2lll,seeking regularization of the services of her husband' and to provide her the family pension benefits' respondent-Department

1.1 The Tribunat' Uy Oraet dated 06'07'2015 directed the respondents to regularize the services of the deceased workman in terms of G.O.Ms.No.l43 Irrigation (Ser'V) Department dated l8'3'1984 read with G.o.Ms.No.56Irrigation&CAD(ProjectWing-Estt(1))Departmentdated

28.2.|g8gandG.o.Ms.No.8SI&CADdeparlmentdated26.3.1993aswas done in the case of similarly situated and 29 other NMRs by Government 17.4.2014 issued by the principal Department within a period of three of the peririoner.herein (i.e.. wil"e) lor the case of Boda Kousalya (widow o period of lwo months thereafter. S 2 w p _41.34a -2017 NBK, J persons namely Sri B. Nageswara Rao Memo No.2l15l/Ser.y.2/20 l3 dared ecretary Irrigation and CAD / Ser.V months; and also consider the claim family pension, as was considered in f Sri Boda Ramulu, NMR) within a l.Z Thereafter,, the Engineer_in_Chief I 1 B.o t .20 t ? ro rhe Spec iar Ch ief Secrerary with ;_JT:":ff ,::,:: the services of the workman Mr. K. Venkateswar GOMs.No.l43, GOMs.No.56, GOMs.N" rr, "r,lf'Hff: r# :T per the Award dated 26'05' r gg4 in ID No. I05 0f r gg0 0f the Labour courr, and as per the Orders of this Court in W.p.No.2620 of 1995, dated 26.06.1997, and also rhe Order in O.A.No.6g g of 2012, dated 06.07.2015. 1.3 Alleging inaction on the part of respondent_authorities, the petitioner/wife is before rhis Courl with this writ petition, urging that she is deprived of the family pensionary benefils despite favourable orders from the Labour court in I.D.No.r05 0f rgg0 (dated 26.05.rgg4) and also this Court in W.p.No.262O of 1995 (dated 26.06.1997), and also the Tribunal in O.A.No.688 of 2012 (dated 06.07.2015). 2. Heard Mr. A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioner; and leamed Govemment Pleader for Services-Il. perused the record.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner, making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, essentially contends that the deceased workman (Mr' K' Venkateshwarlu) were directed to be reinstated into service' and his case was upheld by the Labour Court in l'D'Nb'105 of 1990 (dated 26'05'1994) 3 wp-41348-2017 NBK, J and this Court in W'P'No'2620 of 1995 (dated 26'06'1997)' and turther the Tribunat in O'A'No'688 of 20 t2 (dated 06'07'2015) directed regularization of his services and provide family pension to the petitioner (since the workman had expired)' and further the Engineer-in-Chief addressed a letter dated 18.01.2017 to the Special Chief Secretary seeking instructions for implementation of the Order dated 06'07 '2015 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.688 of [Ol2;howeveg there has been inaction on the part of the respondents, and the petitioner/wife is deprived of the family pension and other benefits, in spite of specific orders by the Tribunal in her favour' 4. Learned Government Pleader opposes the writ petition on the ground that GOMs'No'l43 dated 16'03'1984 has been superseded by Act 2 of 1994; andthe GOMs'No'l43 is not applicable to the workman' and the case of the petitioner has to be examined as per GOMs'No'2l2' and the petitioner does not fulfil the conditions stipulated therein' and hence the writ petition is liabte to be dismissed' 5. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it is to be noted that' "1":no':1.:j:":ff1ffi::,H::j;1: the workman approached the Labour Court tn reinstatement of the Labour Court passed Order dated 26'05'lgg4directing workman with consequential benefits and backwages' However' when the filed a writ petition WP No'2620 of 1995 against the Award, this Court disposed the writ petition by Order dated26'06J997 uphotding the reinstatement' however' setting aside the 6i1ss1i6n with regard to payment of backwages' Thereafter' the workman was reinstated on 12.11.1998' However' as the workman expired (on 17'08'2006)' the petitioner/wife approached the A'P' Administrative Tribunal' by hling respondent-Depaftment \ 4 wp _41348 _2O17 NBK, J O.A.No.688 of 2012, seeking family pension benefits by regularizing rhe services ofher husband as per law. 6. It is to be noted that in O.A.No.6g g of 2012, the Tribunal framed a specific point with regard to the entitlement of petitioner to regurarization, which reads as follows: \ "Whether the applicant is entifled for the relief of regularization of the services of her late husband Sri K. Venkateswarlu, NMR, notionalty in terms of G.o.Ms.No.143 rrrigation (ser,v) Department datecr 16.3.1984 read with G.O.ms.No.S6, trrigation & CAD (project Wing-Estt(1)) Department dated 28.2.1989?,, respondent in 7 that the I st The Tribunal, while adjudicating the matter, specifically observed respondent-Superintendent Engineer, Khammam (3.0 the present writ petition) issued proceedings 30'01'2009' converting the service of 2g NMRs of M/s Andhra pradesh State Constructions Corporation Limited, Kl.rammam (now defunct), into work-charged Establishmenr in terms of GoMs.No.l43 dated 16.03.1gg4 read with GOMs.No.56 dated 2g.02.19g9. It was further observed that similarly situated persons, namery, Boda Ramulu, was regularized and that upon the death of Boda Ramulu on 10.04.200g, the respondent authorities provided family pension to his wife Kousaly a apart from providing employment to Boda Beeku (son of Boda Ramulu). The Tribunal further observed that the Governmenr vide Memo No.2l15llSer.y.2/2013 dated 17.04.2014 accorded permission to the Engineer_in_Chief, Irrigation winlrrigation cAD Department, Hyderabad to convert the services of B.Nageswara Rao, NMR TGp, Ailagad da & 2gother NMRs of the defunct M/s Andhra pradesr'r state constructions corporation Limited, Khammam / .( 5 wP 41348-2017 NB(, J into work-charged establishment notionally from the date of completion of five years of service t" ;;' of GOMs'No'l43' and GOMs'No'56' and GOMs.No'88' dated 26'03' 1993' 8. Further, the Tribunal while answering the point of regularization m favour of the workman i*t * Venkateswarlu) observed as follows: "11' ln the light of the above discussion' I am inclined to note thatthe services tf l"t" s'i ;:;;ntt't"t*"tu' the trusband of the applicant' State Constructions Corporation NMR of defunct *"" O^Onra notionally from the date of "desh to-b" '"g'r"'i'ed. completion ""''" ;;" ; his servicejn :H;f :'H:'i::X Limited' ^n"rn"tnl'l lrrisation (Ser'V) Department dated "' ]''ll-o^n lrrigation & CAD (Proiect Wing-Esft(1)) Depa and G'O'Ms'No'"' t'* department dated 26'3'1993' dated 28'2"1989 "nt "OO The point is answered accordingly' 12' ln view of my findings on the point' the respondents are directed of late Sri K' Venkateswarlu' NMR to regularize'co"'"n tn" ""-'"es of the defunct *'" o"in'" Pradesh State Constructions Corporation Limited, ,,0.,"o"0, o. husband of the applicant, into work.charged establishment from the date of completion of five years of service in terms of G'O'Ms'No't +f lrrigation (Ser'V) Department dated 18'3'1984 read with c.o.r,n..ro.se rrrigation & cAD (proiect wing-Estt({ )) Department dated 28'2'1989 and G'O'Ms'No'88 I & CAD department dated 26'3'1993 as was done in the case of similarly situated persons namely sri a' l'g""*"" Rao and 29 other NMRs by Government Memo No' 21 1 5t /S-er'V' 2'20 I 3 dated'17'4'2O1 4 issued by the P ri ncipal Secretary lrrigation ahd cAD / Ser'V Department within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to consider the claim of the applicant by way of approPriate orders pertaining to family pension as in the case of Boda Kousalya widow of Sri Boda Ramulu' NMR within a period of two months thereafter' The OA is disposed of accordingly' No costs'" .,\ ) 6 w p-41348-?017 NBr(. r "n,";-";;":^ respondent-Engineer,, It is further to he n^r^,r .r- submit that as per superintending Engineer;s

9. 06072,tspassed ,, [T;1#:J'J::;*' to the order dared of 2012, the 2nd l': ".^ ^o'u88 8 0]. 2 0; ;;; ;" Spec iar chie r S ecrera" ;[r#jfi": : ;fi J::, . ,,ln this connection, I report sri K. venkate: ff:::,::ifi:#;:': Khammam services : j'f *:: "tr ff""l ri N. Bhaskar (St.No.31) of erstwhile APSCCL, No.211S1lSer.V-r,rrrr:::::::t;:;:;r::i:::ffi IH:,:::* (Sl.No.36) erstwhile Or""", Khammam, were in Memo No. 1 83 1 1/ser. v_ tt 20 1 2_6, t"t'" of G'o'ms'No'143', dated 16'03.84 & G'O'Ms'No'88' dated 26'03'93 ;:r# 1,r::r1r,l",lo,".n,"nt G.O.Ms.No.56, o"r.o exctuding boy service 028'02'89 Ch. purushotham, j:::,:: n their labour Court / High Court orders. Sri K. Venkateshwarlu (Dob:15.02.S9) age as on the initial engagement on Ol.Ol.7t as NMR Winch Operator erstwhile ApSCCL is 18 years & 5 months. Hence, the services ofSri K. Venkateshwarlu (Sl.No.l6 in NMR Winch Operators seniority list) of erstwhite APSCCL, Khammam are to be regularized on par with his juniors on completion of S years of NMR Service in terms of G.o.Ms.No.143, dated 16.03.84 G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 28.02.89 & G.O.Ms.No.8B, dated 26.03.93 as per award dated 26.05.94 in lD No.10S/1990 of Labour court, warangar, and High court orders in w.p.No.2620 0f 1995 in which set aside retrenchment and he entitle continuity of service and absorption in any Government Departmenucorporation, without back wages and orders dated 06.07.1S in O.A.No.688 ot 2012.,, the factum of the workman-Mr' K' venkateswarlu

10. ln this connection' , a... *. at t'u"l- :: ::: :'.:*' - ;'T'T:' ::H: : :H? .: BY the dt not in disgute' 4 7 w p-4 13 4 8-20 17 NBK,I "*pity' years. lt is the specific tinding recorded by the Tribunal that a similarly situated NMR' namely' Boda Ramulu was regularized under his wife Boda Kousalya was provided GOMs.No'l43, and on t-'i' family pension, apart from employment to his son (Boda Beeku)' 11. It is to be noted that these are all factual aspects' borne out by the record. Considering these aspects' the Tribunal framed a specific issue/point in O'A'No'68 8 of 2Ol2' dated 06'07'2015' with regard to :"*'"t'1::1: workman's (K. venkateshwartr-r/deceased) and, after due enquiry' the Tribunal recorded a finding that the workman ts entitlem*t to entitled to regularization'

12. It is to be further noted that after the Tribunal's Order dated O6.O7.2Ol5,the Engineer-in-Chief has written to the Special Chief Secretary with regard to regularization of the services of Mr' K' venkateshwarru (deceased), as per GoMs'No'143' GoMs'No'56' GOMs.No.88, on par with the juniors' as per the Award of the Labour Court in ID No.105 of 1990 (dated 26'05' 1994)' and the Orders of this Court in w.p.No.2620 of 1995 (dated 26.06 .rggi), and also rhe order of the Tribunal in O.A.No'688 of 2012(dated 06'07'2015)' 13. Atthisjuncture, it is to be noted that the grounds soughtto be urged by the respondent authorities now in this writ petition that GOMs'No'143 is not applicable to the pgtitioner' or that the GOMs'No'I43 has been replaced, cannot be countenanced, for it is an undeniable fact that a similarly situated employee (namely, Boda Ramulu) has been regularized and his wife and son were granted the benefits upon his demise. Further, the rights accrued and benefits granted by the authorities to a similarly situate\employee under a particular Govemment Order cannot be denied \ 8 wp-41348_2017 emproyee ',"r;";;"'lv 'o'.'n ol'put" tr'e ' petitioner situated employee (' vees when ;;:ao"'lu Rarnulu) *"t **"J'ol' denied ro the petitiort bv framing to another simirarrv cir,,^. , because the G.o ndy proceedings. ,, ,. ,l.oll',1*""';;;;; simirarry ^'*'' herein) merelv or replaced bv sorne other and the p"tition"t utl o,r""o " was in existence and one ri."., e.ar'l ro"",o:::^th" 'u""' huJo".J;k,1ffi[T.,.rrff " regarding the entitrernent of the petitioner fbr regurarization , *o .rtssue on record' the Tribunal named Mr' Boda Ramulu' his wife "'i*i;;;''' and upon the;;;;;'"'NMR his son 1t"' otn""' ;";";:'Boda recorded a specific ,rer Ramuru *u. ."grtu.i.'ding Kousa.rva was given;ed' emplovmen*o petitioner too is entirred i^"-'1',*t ,r";.;;;:;, fi.I#;,:il ;: to regularization. considering the mate :: Hon' ble suprerne Court in ,.-^^ _.- court, by referring ,o so At this juncture, ir is arso rerevanr ro refe in Jaggo vs. union of r rte of Karnatau, ..r.. ,o'ootar' '::'".- reter to the judgment of the wherein the apex vs' umadevi2' held as follows: ,,26. whitethe judsment ,, ,r,.":::, ^ practice ot backooorTt.in constitdtionar principr misinterpreted o. ,,."' Umadevi {supra) sought to curtait the entries and ensure appointments adhered to it.is regrettable that its principles are often .,ffi: g:,Alii i1i;il";::IT,:ff H ;:.-I,; appointments' lt categorically held that served continu"':;;iT::t;:"',:: for regularization as a one-time subverted whe",non,,"lT*; :.'H[iji:J::::il[ H: employees in i.r"!u,"f' sanctioned posts and vears, shourd o" measure. However, ,nat"'o"t"o r appointments' who were "o,n11 12024 tNsc 1034 ' (2006) 4 scc 1 ( e 'P-41348-J;oi]r ' -^-o< where their aPpointments *,".:.:'j*: their roles a 2T. rn tshtorth""" "'""J;;;;"d by exampte iLlo*", Etts'v"-when basis ror *o,t.r..":j-:":,. intesrar to the **T}:;ns sovernment -ataute emptoYmenL labour periods' *t:".":i-:[' international emetov:et "on,,"'"n"' ::;;. :;";,;;,".' ":":,I"-5l il:H;,;;;;," :il.'T::.,,".- standards but also "-:";;rr,". By ensuringce the burden of undermines ,;;"^, l:::: and uphord the practices, sou"'nt";,'0.."," i"o'"."_:Y;""',11 rn,. unnecessary,n,n"u.l]r;;;;"r,n",,n", :l:..::". sets a positive principres oriustice contributins to the approach ''nlr" precedent ror t* .""1::1'^n, .""1o, to rorro*, tnt'"u :l;;;;r;rractices in the country'" T;;;""r, *:t:"," "rlo"o;. *. Venkateshwarlu's ,, ;;:: ;";- ;;;" L""i:1'::':^il:T;"::::::# O'O *"'U* of 2012'When a specific issue/point Tribunal with regard to the Mr' K' before the Tribunal ' has been ftamed UV 't" entrtlement to regularization' and his similarity with other NMRs (like Boda Ramulu) as per GoMs.No.143, cannot ercrnally t"-';;; a question ol-'u"' that has already bben in the proceedings before the Tribunal' The determined urra (workman herein) is on par "ryr,utHred Tribunal has held that Mr' K' Venkateshwarlu with Boda Ramulu' who was also an NMR' and the Tribunal accordingly held that Mt' K' Venkateshwatlu is entitled to regularization on par with the respondents \ I 10 *'-o"oto:ro;" mafter, the inaction Boda Ramulu as per Gor\4s Nn r z r r .. on the part or ,".pona"r' o.A.No.6gg of 2012our,rr, s'No' I 43 ' I, that view ,, imprementing ,n" ,ortn" rhe Arri c r es, 0,, u *o) r: [:a'"r,:H,:- ffi i:; j*,* 16. In view of the dated 26.06.,rr, ,ofll,;T:lffis court in w-p.No.2620 or ree5 of the workman (Mr. K. orderpassed by the Tribunar in o.A.No.u* o, ;: #"*; *: it,I':ff ffi ,:: ;.:yffi , ;*i; and *. a,.]^- -^^'',satement 2012, dated ou.or.r'n" venkateswarlu); "; venkareswarru) from;:;:ffi:ffi:;' of rhe workman (Mr. K. GoMs.No.l43, and also keeping in view ,r" ,J;,ff:X;;#T; Supreme court in Jaggo (supra), the writ petition deserves to be a,owed. 17. The writ petition is therefore allowed, by granting the relief prayed for' The I't respondent is directed to take steps for passing orders of regularization of the services of the deceased workman (Mr. K. venkateswarru) as per the directions in rhe order dated, 06.07.20 r 5 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No .6gg of 2012; and consequentially process rhe family pension benefits of the petitioner herein (the wife of the deceased workman' The entire exercise sha, be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed l ,,TRUE COPY/I i.'{l",""RTH=[*?HIA .."r,oW.=* epartment, Secretariat' & cAD D To, , 11fi",il';;l6',."t3i+'Jgld"Jlln".on lrrigation & CAD Department' Ensineer' NSLBc-o & M circre Erramanjil, HYderabad' . TekulaPallY, Khammam' , ,na'*'t"er-in-Chief ' i *t:*ii",*,'lt I I 7 4 One CC to SRI A K JAYAPRAKASH RAO' Advocate IOPUCI q Two ccs to Gp FoR Hrderabad [oUT] 'ERVTcES-,,, High court for the State of rerangana at

6. Two CD CoPies BSR BS ry. .:t ..:,{ -- -irits-d-L'},.aii. r ,ti':r,itt tI HIGH COURT DATED: OBIOTt2O2S ORDER WP.No.4134B ot 2O1t t SF. !L rS .\ : (,.t ,.1:. :- 22 AUG 2025 : o: I\.1.C\t'.",.:. I ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 1 ,." g