Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
G.R.V. Vidya Sagar And Ors. vs Government Of A.P. And Anr. on 5 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(2)ALD353, 2002(2)ALT61
Author: B. Sudershan Reddy
Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy
JUDGMENT B. Sudershan Reddy, J.
1. The petitioners - ten in number invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents herein to regularise the services of the petitioners herein with effect from the dates of their initial engagement with all consequential benefits by declaring the action of the respondents in not regularising their services and in not paying them the wages on par with the other employees as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
2. The facts as is evident from the pleadings may have to be noticed before adverting to the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of any relief as such from this Court.
3. All the petitioners herein are graduates. They are also having technical qualifications like typewriting both English and Telugu languages and shorthand. According to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, they have been working as Typists with effect from their initial date of engagement, i.e., 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992 respectively. It is claimed that they are working continuously ever since the date of their initial engagement with intermittent artificial breaks. It is the case of the petitioners that the artificial breaks were given intermittently by the respondents only to deprive their legitimate right for absorption and regularisation of their services in the posts held by them.
4. No doubt, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, reliance is sought to be placed upon the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22-4-1994 prescribing certain guidelines for regularisation of the services of the temporary employees. But during the, course of hearing of the writ petition, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would not be entitled for the benefit of G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22-4-1994 since they have been engaged and appointed to discharge their functions as typists and stenographers by the second respondent. The stand of the respondents is also that the Secretariat of the State Legislative Assembly is an autonomous body, which functions under the direct supervision and control of the Speaker. The rules/executive instructions issued by the State Government for regularisation of the temporary employees appointed by the State Government, Corporations, Undertakings, Universities, etc., which functions under the direct control of the State Government would not be applicable to the temporary employees/staff engaged by the Secretariat of the State Legislative Assembly.
5. We are also of the considered opinion that the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments of Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (Act 2 of 1994) and the executive instructions issued in G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22-4-1994 prescribing certain guidelines for regularisation of the services of the temporary employees would not be applicable in respect of the employees/staff engaged by the second respondent-Secretariat of the State Legislative Assembly.
6. Shorn of all the details - the case of the petitioners is that their services are required to be regularised by the second respondent herein in the posts into which they were appointed initially on whatever basis. The rest of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition need not be noticed.
7. In the counter-affidavit, it is, however, stated that the second respondent appointed the regular typists as per the recruitment rules in the sanctioned posts. The petitioners cannot compare themselves with such of those employees who were appointed regularly in accordance with the recruitment rules. It is the case of the respondents that the very appointment order issued to the petitioners would make it clear that their appointment is purely temporary. They are not entitled for any salaries, emoluments and others benefits on par with the regular employees who were appointed in accordance with the recruitment rules.
8. It is further submitted that there was no recruitment whatsoever by the second respondent in the posts of typists in the Legislature Secretariat with effect from 21-8-1990. The Assistants and Typist posts were converted as Typist-cum-Assistants and the vacant posts of Typist-cum-Assistants were notified to the A.P. Public Service Commission long back to sponsor the eligible candidates for selection and appointment into the said posts. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission has intimated that the candidates will be allotted for the posts of Typist-cum-Assistants.
9. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that after sponsoring the candidates by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission for the posts of typist-cum-assistants, the services of temporary typists who have been continuing with breaks will be terminated for want of vacancies.
10. The learned Additional Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the respondents made available the records for the perusal of the Court. The records so made available would disclose that at least with effect from February, 1995 onwards the petitioners are being continued in the same posts which they were holding earlier thereto. They are continuously discharging their functions as typists/assistants with intermittent artificial breaks of 2 to 3 days. The proceedings of the second respondent would disclose that they were being even paid the salaries in the regular pay scale, of course not on part with the regular employees.
11. Be that as it may, there are no even artificial breaks now given by the second respondent herein view of the interim orders passed by this Court at the time of admitting this writ petition in the year 1999 directing the respondents to continue the petitioners in service.
12. The short question that falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioners are entitled for any relief from this Court directing the respondents to regularise their services in the posts held by them.
13. It is an admitted fact that none of the petitioners herein were appointed in any regular vacancy as such. Their appointment is not under the recruitment rules even on temporary basis. The proceedings issued in the year 1987 appointing some of the petitioners as typists would show that they were appointed for a period of few days initially. Admittedly, there has been no selection as such of any of the candidates into any regular post. It is not as if some vacancies were available at the relevant time when they were appointed as typists. It appears from the record that their appointments were due to exigencies of situation and workload that was available at the relevant time. In the circumstances, it would not be possible for this Court to issue any mandamus compelling the second respondent herein to regularise the services of the petitioners.
14. But, at the same time, we are of the considered opinion that the issue as to whether the petitioners services could be utilised in some manner by the second respondent is required to be considered by the second respondent. It is for the second respondent to consider as to whether any scheme may have to be framed to accommodate the petitioners for utilisation of their services as typists. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, , in similar circumstances, observed:
"The proper course would that each Slate prepares a scheme, if one is not already in vogue, for regularisation of such employees consistent with its reservation policy and if a scheme is already framed, the same may be made consistent with our observations herein so as to reduce avoidable litigation in this behalf. If and when such person is regularised he should be placed immediately below the last regularly appointed employee in that category, class or service, as the case may be.
So far as the work-charged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularise them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any, prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell - say two or three years - a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularisation. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. As has been repeatedly stressed by this Court, security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job. In this behalf, we do commend the orders of the Government of Haryana (contained in its letter dated 6-4-1990 referred to hereinabove) both in relation to work-changed employees as well as casual labour."
15. The Supreme Court in Hindustan Machine Tools v. M, Ranga Reddy, , after referring to its earlier decision in Raj Narian Prasad v. State of U.P., , including the decision in Piara Singh (supra) observed:
"Tested on the touchstones of the principles laid down in the decisions noted above and keeping in mind the mandate of the Constitution under Articles 38(1), 39(e) and 43, we are of the considered view that the directions issued by the High Court to the appellants to frame a scheme for regularisation of services of the writ petitioners does not warrant interference. However, considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for the appellants that the Company is under financial constraints and has decided to reduce its work force, we would like to clarify that while framing the scheme it would be open to the appellant Company and the officers concerned to assess the requirement of regular work force in its different units, particularly, the units in which the writ petitioners have been engaged over long periods and also the necessity for alleviation of the suffering to which the writ petitioners have been subjected to during all these years and fix the strength of work force so that the workers concerned are able to get the benefit of regular service within a reasonable time. It goes without saying that the absorption of the casual workers in regular service will be subject to the fulfillment of the conditions of eligibility qualification with relaxation of the age prescribed under the rules."
16. We are inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the same observations directing the second respondent herein to consider the desirability to frame an appropriate scheme to utilise the services of the petitioners in the posts of typists or in other appropriate posts. It shall be open to the second respondent herein to take relevant factors and circumstances into consideration and fix the cadre strength in case it decides to absorb the petitioners herein as its regular employees in the same posts held by them.
17. It shall also be open to the second respondent herein to scrutinise the claim of each of the petitioners and their eligibility and qualifications for their absorption into regular posts of typists or other appropriate posts depending upon the availability of work.
18. We consider it appropriate to direct the second respondent herein to evolve and frame an appropriate scheme for regular absorption of the services of the petitioners in the suitable posts. The second respondent shall consider the desirability of framing of an appropriate scheme within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to observe that while framing such a scheme the second respondent shall have due regard to the qualification as regards age.
19. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.