Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M. Lingamma vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ... on 6 March, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(2)ALD527B, 2000(2)ALT98, [2000(85)FLR545]
ORDER
1. The facts I state here below at the outset would themselves indicate the unscrupulous and unfair labour practice resorted to by the management of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short "APSRTC") against the petitioner, a hapless petty official holding the post of Sweeper.
2. The facts are as follows:--The petitioner-lady was appointed as sweeper as far as back on 11-8-1980. After a long lapse of 10 years from the date of her appointment as Sweeper, she was subjected to medical examination in the month of February, 1990 to assess her medical and physical fitness and suitability. The medicalauthority of the Corporation, after examining, found her to be medically and physically fit for the job. When the matter stood thus, on 9-5-1991, the Management of APSRTC without issuing any notice or office order, high-handedly prevented the petitioner from discharging her duty. The petitioner assailed that illegal action in Writ Petition No.6946 of 1991. This Court, pending disposal of the writ petilion, issued the interim direction to the respondents to continue her in the service. Ultimately, this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 29-4-1994 directing the Management of APSRTC to consider her case for regularisation in the post of Sweeper. Then came the impugned order dated 1-9-1998, issued by the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Medak Region informing the petitioner that as per the Recruitment Regulations of APSRTC, a candidate to be appointed to the post of sweeper must be able to read and write simple sentences in Telugu, Hindi or Urdu. The petitioner was also informed by the same proceeding that the responsibility to acquire qualification rests with the petitioner. At this stage, the petitioner apprehending that the Management of APSRTC would not regularise her services, has presented this writ petition praying for writ of mandamus to declare the aforementioned proceeding of the second respondent as illegal and for consequential reliefs.
3. In response to Rule Nisi, counter affidavit has been filed contesting the claim of the petitioner. Certain authorities have also been cited in the counter to deny the relief of regularisation of service to the petitioner.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner having been appointed to the post of Sweeper as far as back as on 11-8-1980, it is totally unbecoming of a model employer on the part of the employer-Corporation to tell thepetitioner after a long lapse of 20 years that she lacks literacy and, therefore her request for regularisation of her services would not be considered. It is time and again stated and reiterated by the constitutional Courts that public law employment agencies such as APSRTC and other public statutory Corporations and companies should function as model employer and their actions in treating their employees should satisfy the principles of natural justice and fair play-in-action. The very fact that the management continued the services of the petitioner as sweeper for more than two decades indicates that there is need for the services of the petitioner on regular basis. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was initially appointed in the establishment of APSRTC as a stopgap arrangement in order to meet its administrative exigency and temporary need. Be that as it may, in my considered opinion, the opinion of the Supreme Court handed down in Bhagwati Prasad v, Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, 1990 (1) LLJ (SC) 320, fully covers and governs the facts of this case. In that case the Supreme Court dealt with an almost similar facts situation and observed in Para (6) thus:
"As main controversy centers round the question whether some petitioners are possessed of the requisite qualifications to hold the posts so as to entitled them to be confirmed in the respective posts held by them. The indisputable facts are that the petitioners were appointed between the period 1983 and 1986 and ever since, they have been working and have gained sufficient experience in the actual discharge of duties attached to the posts held by them. Practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess the suitability. The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the differentposts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of the initial entry into the service. Once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time it would be heard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications..."
5. Although reference is made to certain decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court in the counter affidavit, in my considered opinion, those authorities have no direct bearing on this case. On the other hand the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in (supra) has the direct application to the facts of the instant case.
6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with costs, quantified at Rs.2,500/-payable to the petitioner within two weeks from today. A direction shall issue to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner, extending admissible time scale of pay and other service benefits, pecuniary and otherwise, to the petitioner. The respondents shall implement this direction within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.