Telangana High Court
C.Mahender vs Pottisreeramulu Telugu University on 21 April, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 TEL 54
Author: M.S.Ramachandra Rao
Bench: M.S.Ramachandra Rao
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2020
in
Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2019
in
Writ Petition No.23057 of 2019
and
Writ Petition No.23057 of 2019
COMMON ORDER :(Per Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao) The petitioners herein who are five in number have filed the present Writ Petition against the Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University, Hyderabad, the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh challenging the separate but identical orders passed by the said University on 20.08.2019 in respect of each of the petitioners, rejecting their claims for regularization of services on 'One-Time' basis.
The background facts
2. The 1st petitioner belongs to 'BC-A' Community and was initially engaged on daily wage basis in the 1st respondent-University as Office Subordinate / Attender on 03.01.1990; the 2nd petitioner also belongs to the same Community and had been engaged on daily wage basis as Attender from 15.05.1990; the 3rd petitioner belongs to the 'SC' Community and was appointed on daily wage basis as Attender on 01.06.1990; the 4th petitioner belongs to 'BC-B' Community and was appointed on daily wage basis as Attender on 18.12.1990; the 5th MSR,J & TA,J ::2:: wp_23057_2019 petitioner belongs to 'BC-D' Community and was appointed on daily wage basis as Attender on 27.02.1991; and the 6th petitioner belongs to 'OC' Community and was appointed on daily wage basis as Attender on 01.06.1996.
3. According to petitioners, they were continuously discharging their duties in the posts of Attenders against the sanctioned posts with all required qualifications as on the date of the filing of the Writ Petition, and that they were also extended minimum time-scale without increments from the year 2000.
4. In 2000, according to petitioners, a Selection Committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor of the 1st respondent-University for filling up vacancies in 'Clerical and Class-IV' categories conducted a meeting on 18.05.2000 with three Members, viz., (a) Sri J. Vitthal, Joint Registrar, J.N.T.U., Hyderabad; (b) Sri Niranjanachary, Deputy Registrar, Osmania University, Hyderabad; and (c) Prof. N. Siva Ramamurthy, Registrar, Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University, Hyderabad; and after considering category, strength, qualifications and the period of working, the said Committee made recommendations for regularization of the services of the six petitioners also.
5. In 2003, a letter dt.20.02.2003 addressed by the 1st respondent- University to the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad MSR,J & TA,J ::3:: wp_23057_2019 the 1st respondent stated that petitioners were given minimum time scale only against sanctioned vacancies and requested the latter to accord permission for granting regular time scales to them.
6. In 2008, the 1st respondent-University addressed a letter dt.21.05.2008 to the then Principal Secretary to Government, Finance (SMPC) Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad through the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education (UE.II) Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad stating that the petitioners fulfilled all conditions for regularization as per G.O.Ms.212 Finance and Planning, dt.22.04.1994 except having five years service as on 25.11.1992; and that petitioners' services are essential and there were sufficient vacancies for regularizing their services.
7. In 2015, the Registrar of the 1st respondent-University addressed a letter on 11.09.2015 to the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education (U.E.) Department, Government of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad requesting the Government to take a sympathetic view and to permit the 1st respondent to regularize the services of the above six petitioners who were working on minimum time-scale against available vacancies mentioning that the additional expenditure involved in the regularization of their services would be met from the block grant of the 1st respondent-University.
8. The petitioners further contend that on 12.05.2017, the 1st respondent-University issued a notification for filling up posts of MSR,J & TA,J ::4:: wp_23057_2019 Office Subordinates, (06) in number, but the said regular recruitment had not been finalized till date.
Order dt.13.6.2019 in WP.No.11016 of 2019
9. The petitioners gave a representation dt.21.06.2019 to the respondents relying on certain decisions of the apex court including Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi1and also the judgment dt.3.7.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 22770 of 2014. When it was not disposed of, they filed WP.No.11016 of 2019 before this Court.
10. W.P.11016 of 2019 was disposed of by this Court on 13.6.2019 directing the State of Telangana rep., by Secretary, Higher Education (UE.II) Department and Secretary, Finance Department and the State of Andhra Pradesh rep buy it's Principal Secretary, Higher Education (UE.II) Department to consider the said representation, but the respondents have rejected the same except as regards the 1st petitioner by separate identical orders dt.20.08.2019. The impugned orders
11. In the impugned orders, after referring to the initial dates of appointment of each of the petitioners and the fact that subsequently they were granted the benefits of minimum time-scale of pay in the year 2000, the 1st respondent-University merely stated that the petitioners were not covered by the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.22770 of 2014; that they were not recruited against any 1 (2006) 4 S.C.C. 1 MSR,J & TA,J ::5:: wp_23057_2019 regular vacancy in the University, and they are not entitled to seek relief of regularization.
Contentions of petitioners
12. The petitioners contend that the 1st respondent-University did not examine:
(i) recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor of the 1st respondent-University for filling up vacancies in 'Clerical and Class-IV' categories in the meeting held on 18.05.2000
(ii) letter dt.20.02.2003 addressed by the 1st respondent-University to the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad,
(iii) letter dt.21.05.2008 addressed by the 1st respondent-University to the then Principal Secretary to Government, Finance (SMPC) Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad through the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education (UE.II) Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad,
(iv) letter of Registrar on 11.09.2015 to the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education (U.E.) Department, Government of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad or
(v) the orders passed in Writ Petition No.22770 of 2014 MSR,J & TA,J ::6:: wp_23057_2019 and with a mala fide intention rejected petitioners' plea for regularization.
13. It is contended that the 1st respondent University could not have passed any order on the petitioners' representation as the direction in WP.NO.11016 of 2019 was to the respective State Governments.
14. According to them, when this Court directed the respondents in the Writ petition to evolve the scheme within a period of three (03) months vide order dt.13.06.2019 in Writ Petition No.11016 of 2019, the respondents ought to have taken note of the fact that petitioners completed ten years of services as on 10.04.2006, the date when the judgment of the Supreme Court was rendered in Uma Devi ( 1 supra), the respondents ought to have done a one-time regularization of services of the petitioners.
15. According to them, the impugned orders indicate total non- application of mind by the respondents. They pointed out that Writ Petition No.22770 of 2014 is in relation to Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University and the petitioners essentially were similarly situated to the petitioners in the instant case; that as on the date of initial appointment of the petitioners there were sanctioned posts; even on 18.05.2000 the selection committee sent recommendations for regularization of their services in the posts of Attenders by duly mentioning the posts; and that in letter dt.20.02.2003 addressed by the 1st respondent-University to the Principal Secretary to MSR,J & TA,J ::7:: wp_23057_2019 Government, Higher Education Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad it was stated that they were being given minimum time scale against sanctioned vacancies and on 21.05.2008 also, the 1st respondent had stated that petitioners were working against sanctioned posts and.
16. The petitioners contended that they have completed 25 years of service and have only got a few years of left over service for retirement and unless this Court directs the respondents to regularize their services duly counting the service from the date of engagement of daily wage till the date of regularization, i.e., completion of (10) years as on 10.04.2006 for the purpose of pension, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss.
17. The counsel for petitioners placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Nihal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others2, State of Karnataka and others vs. M.L. Kesari and others3, U.V.S.R. Prasad and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Prl. Secretary - Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Guntur District and another4 and Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, PR and RD Department, Hyderabad and others vs. N. Venkaiah and others5. 2 (2013) 14 S.C.C. 65 3 (2010) 9 S.C.C. 247 4 2017 (6) A.L.T. 751 (D.B.) 5 2018 (4) A.L.T. 6 (D.B.) MSR,J & TA,J ::8:: wp_23057_2019 Events after filing of the Writ petition
18. The Government Pleader for Services-I for State of Telangana ( respondents 2 and 4) had sought time to file counter-affidavit on 14.11.2019, 06.12.2019, 09.12.2019, 10.12.2019, 19.12.2019, 07.01.2020 and on 23.01.2020.
19. On 23.01.2020, as a last chance, time was granted to the State of Telangana to file counter-affidavit till 04.02.2020 making it clear that if no counter-affidavit is filed by it, the 2nd respondent, i.e., the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department should appear before this Court on 04.02.2020.
20. On 04.02.2020, time was again granted till 18.02.2020 to the 2nd respondent to file counter-affidavit making it clear that if no counter-affidavit is filed by that date the right of the 2nd respondent to file counter-affidavit would stand forfeited. When the matter was listed on 18.02.2020, no counter-affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent and this Court recorded the fact that the matter was undertaken twelve adjournments and forfeited the right of the 2nd respondent to file a counter-affidavit on the ground that in spite of a specific direction to file counter-affidavit, it has chosen not to do so.
21. Only the State of Andhra Pradesh (3rd respondent) filed a counter-affidavit that too on 21.12.2019.
MSR,J & TA,J
::9:: wp_23057_2019
Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2019 in Writ Petition No.23057 of 2019
22. On 23.01.2020, interim suspension was granted by this Court in Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2019 in Writ Petition No.23057 of 2019.
Interlocutory Appliation No.1 of 2020 in Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2019 in Writ Petition No.23057 of 2019
23. The 1st respondent University filed Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2020 to vacate the order dt.23.01.2020 passed in Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2019 in Writ Petition No.23057 of 2019. The stand of the 1st respondent University
24. In it's counter affidavit filed with IA.No. 1 of 2020, the 1st respondent University contended petitioners herein were initially recruited on Daily wages, while the petitioners working in Sree Venkateswara University who were granted relief in WP.No.22770 of 2014 were employed as casual labour.
25. In our opinion, the petitioners who had been 'recruited' by 1st respondent would stand on a better footing than the petitioners in WP.No.22770 of 2014.
26. It is however admitted by the 1st respondent that all petitioners had completed 10 years of service as on 10-4-2006, the date when the decision in Uma Devi ( 1 supra) was pronounced.
MSR,J & TA,J
::10:: wp_23057_2019
27. But it is contended that they are hit by G.O.Ms.No.212 dt.22.4.2014 under which they ought to have completed 5 years of service by 25.11.1993.
The stand of the State of Andhra Pradesh
28. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat (3rd respondent), it is contended that the 1st respondent- University came into existence in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh under the Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University Act, 1985, and is located in Public Gardens, Nampally, Hyderabad.
29. According to him, the Institute is included in the 'X' Schedule of the Andhra Pradesh Re-Organization Act, 2014 and the same has not been bifurcated and the University has not been reallocated or re-established in the Andhra Pradesh and is not functioning in Andhra Pradesh.
30. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent-State of Telangana took possession of the funds of the Institution, Staff, buildings, etc., of the existing University without due consideration to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Re-Organization Act, 2014 and without consideration of the request made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
31. According to the 3rd respondent, three study centres located in the territory of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh are also under MSR,J & TA,J ::11:: wp_23057_2019 the Administrative Control of the 1st respondent-University, at Hyderabad.
32. It is contended that petitioners are working in the Head Office of the 1st respondent-University which is located in the State of Telangana, that as on December, 2019, bifurcation of funds of the Institution assets and staff has not taken place, and the 3rd respondent has no role to play in the regularization of services of petitioners till the bifurcation takes place, and that the petitioners are working under the direct control of respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 only. The consideration by the Court
33. We have noted the contentions of both sides.
34. In Uma Devi (1 supra), the Supreme Court has held that any public employment has to be in terms of the constitutional scheme and a sovereign Government, considering the economic situation in the country and the work to be got done, is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages. It however declared that a regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be resorted to when regular vacancies in posts at a particular point of time are to be filled up and filling up of those vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard manner or based on patronage or other considerations. It declared that regular appointments must be the rule. It held that in situations where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant MSR,J & TA,J ::12:: wp_23057_2019 posts are made, and all the employees have continued to work for ten years or more, but without the intervention of orders of Courts or of Tribunals, their claim for regularization of services have to be considered on merits. It directed that the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps for regularization, as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed persons who have worked for ten (10) years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of Courts or of Tribunals. It also directed that Court should ensure that regular appointments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts. It directed the said process to be set in motion within six (06) months from the date of pronouncement of its order in Uma Devi (1 supra), i.e., 10.04.2006.
35. M.L. Kesari (3 supra) explained the decision in Uma Devi (1 supra) as one meaning that after the decision in Uma Devi (1 supra) each Department or each instrumentally should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily wage or adhoc employees who have been working for more than (10) years without the intervention of Courts and Tribunals and subject them to a process of verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite services.
36. In Writ Petition No.22770 of 2014, a claim was made by casual labourer employee in the Sri Venkateswara University seeking minimum time-scale of pay as per revised pay scales of 2010 and for MSR,J & TA,J ::13:: wp_23057_2019 consequential mandatory benefits together with D.A., H.R.A., and C.C.A. They also challenged the action of the said University and the State Government in not evolving a scheme of absorption of employees working for more than ten (10) years as on 10.04.2006 in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi (1 supra).
This Court allowed the said Writ Petition on 3.07.2017 by giving the following directions :
"8. Having regard to the above submissions of respective parties, as regards payment of minimum of time scale of pay as was paid to regular employees, the same cannot be denied to the petitioners in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others6 and the respondents are directed to pay the petitioners minimum of the time scale as was paid to regular employees within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. As regards the claim of the petitioners for regularization, the respondents are directed to evolve a scheme of absorption of employees who were working more than 10 years as on 10.04.2006 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary to the State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi and others7, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate their decision to the petitioners, since the said judgment directs the Government to take steps to regularize the services of temporary employees as a one-time measure. Only after the claim of the petitioners for regularization is resolved, the petitioners would be entitled to claim other benefits such as H.R.A.., etc."
37. The petitioners herein had filed Writ Petition No.11016 of 2019 relying on the above judgment and the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 13.06.2019 directing the respondents herein to consider the proposals submitted by the 1st respondent-University and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law by taking into account the 6 (2017) 1 S.C.C. 148 7 (2006) 4 S.C.C. 1 MSR,J & TA,J ::14:: wp_23057_2019 judgment of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi (1 supra) and the decision in Writ Petition No.22770 of 2014, referred to supra.
38. When the petitioners gave representations to the 1st respondent- University, it rejected it simply saying that the petitioners are not covered by the order passed in Writ Petition No.22770 of 2014. No reason is given why they are not covered or similarly situated like the persons who filed the said Writ Petition.
39. The fact that the petitioners herein were 'recruited' but continued on Daily wages places them on a better footing than the petitioners in WP.No.22770 of 2019.
40. The mention in the impugned order dt.20.08.2019 that the petitioners are not recruited against any regular vacancy is not correct.
41. In letter dt.20.2.2003 of the 1st respondent to the Government of AP referred to supra, it had admitted that petitioners are accommodated against regular vacancies . In letter dt.21.05.2008 addressed by the 1st respondent-University to the Government of Andhra Pradesh it had stated that even by then there were 11 vacancies of attenders, that the petitioners have been given minimum time-scale of pay in the year 2000, and the 1st respondent-University should be permitted to regularize the services of petitioners against the 11 vacancies which were available. It was stated therein that except completion of five years on 25.11.1993, petitioners fulfilled all other conditions for regularization of their services in terms of the MSR,J & TA,J ::15:: wp_23057_2019 G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance and Planning, dt.22.04.1994. Why the 1st respondent ignored this material containing it's own admissions that the petitioners were working against regular posts of attenders, is inexplicable.
42. A Division Bench of this Court in U.V.S.R. Prasad (4 supra), considered the case of persons employed in the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority as Nominal Muster Roll (NMR)s as Technical Work Inspectors between 1990 and 1992. The Bench followed the judgment in M.L. Kesari (3 supra) which explained the decision in Uma Devi (1 supra) [as one meaning that after the decision in Uma Devi (1 supra) each Department or each instrumentally should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily wage or adhoc employees who have been working for more than (10) years without the intervention of Courts and Tribunals and subject them to a process of verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite services]. Though reliance was placed on Act 2 of 1994 by the State of Andhra Pradesh in the said case which permitted regularization of persons who fulfill the criteria of five years of services as on 25.11.1993 as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dt.22.04.1994, the Division Bench in U.V.S.R. Prasad (4 supra) held as follows :
"15. Concededly, the Supreme Court in A. Manjula Bhashini (2 supra) has not referred to the judgment in Uma Devi (1 supra). Thus, in our opinion, the directions given in para 53 of the judgment in Uma Devi (1 supra) and the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 along with its amendments and MSR,J & TA,J ::16:: wp_23057_2019 the judgment in A. Manjula Bhashini (2 supra) operate in different situations.
16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi (1 supra) was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms.No.212, dt.22.04.1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of persons, who entered service through backdoors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time absorption / regularization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O.Ms.No.212, dt.22.04.1994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi (1 supra). But sill, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regularization / absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms.No.212, dt.22.04.1994, do not whittle down the width and the judgment in Manjula Bashini (2 supra) does not lower the trajectory of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Para 53 of its judgment in Uma Devi (1 supra). It is, therefore, not permissible for the respondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms.No.212, dt.22.04.1994, to deny regularization to the petitioners, who have, admittedly, satisfied the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi (1 supra).
......
18. For the aforementioned reasons, order dt.27.06.2017 in O.A.No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to consider regularization of the services of the petitioners against the existing vacancies of Work Inspectors and appoint them subject to their satisfying the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi (1 supra). This process must be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
43. Similar view was taken in N. Venkaiah (5 supra) by this Court. It observed as under :
MSR,J & TA,J ::17:: wp_23057_2019 "50. As already pointed out, when no regular exercise was ever undertaken in any Department to assess the vacancy position so as to immediately extend benefit to those covered by G.O.Ms.No.212, it is not open to the State to now come forward and say that there were no vacancies as on the date that the employees in question completed five years in service, on or before 25.11.1993. A mere assertion in this regard is nothing short of an unsupported self-serving ipse dixit on the part of the State and its instrumentalities and cannot be accepted at face value. Further, the facts in some of the cases on hand clearly demonstrate that despite clear vacancies being available, no timely steps were taken. Further, when such employees were retained in service for decades together, the necessity to continue them as per the workload is manifest and clearly demonstrated, requiring no further evidence. In such a situation where the State and its instrumentalities are responsible for the situation where it cannot be assessed now as to whether Condition No.5 in G.O.Ms.No.212 stood fulfilled 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 the 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.
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 25.11.1993, for the purposes of their pension and pensionary benefits. They shall however not be entitled to actual monetary benefits for the said period, in the form of arrears of pay or allowances."
44. Though the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, representing the State of Telangana (2nd respondent) sought to defend the action of the 1st respondent-University, having regard to the above decisions and the principles laid down therein, we do not see any substance in his defence, particularly, because the 2nd respondent and the 4th respondent have not even chosen to file counter-affidavit in the matter in spite of being given several opportunities to do so.
MSR,J & TA,J
::18:: wp_23057_2019
45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date.
46. No doubt, they did not complete five years of service by 25.11.1993 as held in G.O.Ms.No.212 dt.22.04.1994 which received statutory approval by Act 2 of 1994, but the letter dt.21.05.2008 of the 1st respondent addressed to the then Government of Andhra Pradesh shows that even by that date there were 11 vacancies and the 1st respondent itself had recommended for their regularization in the said vacancies.
47. Even on 11.09.2015, the 1st respondent had recommended to the 2nd respondent the case of petitioners for regularization earlier on 20.02.2003 also. The 1st respondent had written to the then Government of Andhra Pradesh that petitioners were working on daily wage against sanctioned posts. None of these documents have been disputed by the respondents.
48. It is not known why the 1st respondent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi (1 supra) as explained in M.L. Kesari (3 supra) and undertaken a one-time exercise of preparing the list of daily wage employees who had worked for more than ten (10) years without the intervention of the Courts and Tribunals as on 10.04.2006 and subject MSR,J & TA,J ::19:: wp_23057_2019 them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess requisite qualifications for the posts, and if so, regularize their services.
49. Having regard to the legal position explained above we are satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to the relief of regularization of services and the action of the 1st respondent-University in rejecting their claims for regularization of their services through the impugned orders passed on 20.08.2019 cannot be sustained.
50. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed; the impugned orders dt.20.08.2019 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one-time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the respondents are directed to regularize on one-time basis petitioners' services from the date each of the petitioners complete 10 years of service on daily wages from the initial dates of their appointment. But, they shall not be entitled to any monetary relief. The said exercise shall be done within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
51. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall also pay costs of Rs.10,000/- each to the petitioners.
52. The interim order granted on 23.01.2020 in Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2019 in Writ Petition No.23057 of 2019 is made absolute; and Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2020 in Interlocutory MSR,J & TA,J ::20:: wp_23057_2019 Application No.1 of 2019 in Writ Petition No.23057 of 2019 is dismissed.
53. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J _______________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD, J Date: 21.04.2020 Ndr/Vsv