Telangana High Court
G. Venkataswamy vs The State Of Telangana on 26 April, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION Nos.30884, 30887, 30988, 31044,
31069 and 31554 of 2022
COMMON ORDER:
Since the lis in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are taken up for disposal by way of this common order.
2. These Writ Petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of regularization enunciated under G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 20.07.2022 to the petitioners, on par with the other Lab Attendants as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently, to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in the post of Lab Attendant w.e.f., the date of issuance of appointment order to the similarly situated persons under G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 20.07.2022 and also to continue the petitioners in service up to 61 years of age.
3. Heard Sri. M. Venkat Ram Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Services, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2
PK,J W.P.No.30884 of 2022 & batch
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.85 dated 06.03.1991, wherein, a sanction was given for the creation of 329 new sections in Government and Private Colleges. Accordingly, 329 posts of Lab Attendants were sanctioned. In pursuance of the same, the petitioners herein were appointed as Lab Attendants in the Vocational Junior Colleges on 13.09.1993, 25.08.1992, 02.01.1992, 25.08.1990, 01.02.1993 and 19.08.1991 respectively. He further submits that Government issued various G.Os., extending the benefit of Minimum Time Scale of pay (Basic + D.A.) in the Revised Pay Scales of 2005, 2010 and 2015 to all the Lab Attendants including the petitioners herein. Moreover, respondent No.2 has also sent a letter to the Government on 30.03.2017 recommending to regularize the services of 150 Vocational Lab Attendants, including the services of the petitioners herein, who are working in different subjects/vocational courses in Government Junior Colleges, on the Minimum Time Scale in the State, against the 609 regular posts sanctioned in the Government Junior Colleges. Learned counsel further submits that although respondent No.2 had recommended the names of the petitioners for regularization of their services on 30.03.2017, respondent No.1 has not taken any decision. Therefore, some of the petitioners herein, along with the other similarly situated persons, were constrained to file W.P.No.12618 of 2019 before this Court seeking to 3 PK,J W.P.No.30884 of 2022 & batch regularize their services from the date of their respective appointments. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 25.06.2019 and respondent No.1 therein i.e., the Government of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Education Department, was directed to consider the recommendations made by respondent No.2 therein i.e., Commissioner of Intermediate Education, Telangana, herein vide proceedings dated 30.07.2017 and 10.10.2018, for regularization of services of the petitioners therein, including the petitioners, duly taking into account the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi [AIR 2006 SC 1806], and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. In compliance with the said order, respondent No.1 has issued G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 20.07.2022 directing to regularize the services of 114 Lab Attendants working on minimum time scale basis in vocational stream in Government Junior Colleges across the State against the sanctioned posts in terms of G.O.Ms.No.16, Finance Department, dated 26.02.2016. Accordingly, respondent No.2 issued proceedings in Rc.No.Ser.IIB/36/2020-2 dated 21.07.2022 duly regularizing the services of 114 Lab Attendants. However, the petitioners were ignored and their case for regularization was not considered on the ground that they had attained the age of superannuation as on the date of issuance of the order of regularization i.e., G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 4 PK,J W.P.No.30884 of 2022 & batch 20.07.2022, and its consequential proceedings in Rc.No.Ser.IIB/36/2020-2 dated 21.07.2022.
5. He further submits that although this Court directed respondent No.1 to regularize the services of the petitioners within a period of three months vide order dated 25.06.2019, they failed to comply the same within the stipulated period. They have taken more than three years to regularize the services of the petitioners in the aforementioned writ petition. Due to the delay on the part of the respondents, the petitioners herein have attained the age of 58 years.
6. He further submits that the petitioners have filed contempt cases challenging the action of respondent No.1 in not regularizing their services vide C.C.Nos.868 and 864 of 2020, wherein, learned Government Pleader for Services reported compliance of the orders stating that Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 20.07.2022, thereby, regularizing the services of the candidates. However, no orders were passed in respect of the petitioners herein. Recording the said submission of the learned Government Pleader, the said contempt case was closed, but the petitioners whose services were not regularized were granted liberty to pursue their remedies in accordance with law. Learned counsel further submits that the sole reason for not regularizing the services of the petitioners is that they have crossed the age of 5 PK,J W.P.No.30884 of 2022 & batch superannuation i.e., 58 years, and the same is an unjust and a simple reason for not regularizing their services.
7. Further, the Government of Telangana has taken a policy decision to enhance the age of superannuation of all the State Government employees from 58 years to 61 years, vide G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 30.03.2021. As on the date of issuance of the said G.O., the petitioners herein had not reached the age of 58 years. Therefore, by virtue of proceedings issued by respondent No.2 vide Memo No.Ser.IIB/1228566/2021 dated 10.03.2022 and also the interim order of this Court dated 27.04.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.Nos.31069 and batch, the petitioners are still continuing in service on par with the regular employees. Thus, as per the recommendations of respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 30.03.2017 and 10.10.2018, the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services on par with the candidates whose services were regularized vide G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 20.07.2022. Therefore, respondent No.1 is duty-bound to regularize the services of the petitioners are they are still continuing in service by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 30.03.2021. Therefore, the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. Hence, learned counsel prays this Court to 6 PK,J W.P.No.30884 of 2022 & batch direct respondent No.1 to regularize the services of the petitioners herein by extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.24 to the petitioners.
8. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Services, while admitting the fact that the Government adopted Act No.2 of 1994 to the State in G.O.Ms.No.16, Finance (HRM-I) Department, dated 26.02.2016 with an amendment for the regularization of services of persons appointed on contract basis, submits that the Government in their Memo.No.2554/IE/A1.2016 dated 06.04.2016, called for the check lists of Minimum Time Scale employees along with contract faculty and Junior Lecturers (Minimum Time Scale) working in General and Vocational Streams of Government Junior Colleges in the State. The said check lists were submitted to the Government vide Lr.Rc.No.Ser.II- 2/36/2015 dated 30.03.2017, 08.05.2017 and 10.10.2018. He further submits that the proposals for regularization of 150 Part-Time Lab Attendants (Minimum Time Scale) were recommended to the Government by respondent No.2 vide CIE's letter dated 12.02.2021 wherein the names of the petitioners were listed at Sl.Nos.19, 102, 01, 01, 38 and 01 respectively, but their names were not included in the regularization proceedings issued under G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 20.07.2022, on the ground that they have already crossed the age of superannuation i.e., 58 years, as on the date of issuance of the regularization proceedings. 7
PK,J W.P.No.30884 of 2022 & batch
9. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the dates of birth of the petitioners herein are 12.03.1963, 05.03.1963, 15.04.1963, 29.05.1964, 10.09.1963 and 04.06.1963 respectively, and they have attained the age of superannuation i.e., 58 years on 31.03.2021, 31.03.2021, 30.04.2021, 31.05.2022, 30.09.2021 and 30.06.2021 respectively. As such, they were automatically disengaged from services. Further, respondent No.2 has issued proceedings in Rc.No.Ser.II.B/1228566/2021 dated 10.03.2022 instructing not to claim the remuneration in respect of the personnel those who crossed the age of 58 years in their jurisdiction. Hence, the petitioners were not permitted to duty as per the instructions of respondent No.2. As such, no discrimination is shown towards the petitioners herein. Therefore, learned Government Pleader for Services prays this Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
10. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
11. Admittedly, the names of the petitioners for regularization of services were recommended by respondent No.2 vide letter Rc.No.Ser.II- 2/36/2015 dated 30.03.2017, 08.05.2017 and 10.10.2018. Moreover, as stated by learned Government Pleader for Services, the proposals for regularizing the services of 150 Part-Time Lab Attendants (Minimum 8 PK,J W.P.No.30884 of 2022 & batch Time Scale) were recommended to the Government by respondent No.2 vide letter dated 12.02.2021, wherein, the names of all the petitioners were also included. Subsequently, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 20.07.2022, whereby, the services of 114 Lab Attendants have been regularized. However, the names of the petitioners were not enlisted in the said proceedings. It is evident from the date of said proceedings that the Government has acted upon the proposals sent by respondent No.2 vide aforementioned letters, after a lapse of nearly 5 1/ 2 years, and the petitioners cannot be penalized for the said delay.
12. Furthermore, the respondents averred in their counter-affidavit that the only reason for not including the names of the petitioners in the regularization list was that they had crossed the age of superannuation i.e., 58 years, as on the date of issuance of the regularization proceedings dated 21.07.2022. Here, it is pertinent to refer to G.O.Ms.No.45, Finance (HRM.III) Department, dated 24.03.2021, whereby, the Government has enhanced the age of superannuation of all the State Government employees from 58 years to 61 years. Therefore, it can be held that none of the petitioners have crossed the age of superannuation as on the date of issuance of the regularization proceedings and they are entitled for regularization. 9
PK,J W.P.No.30884 of 2022 & batch
13. It is relevant to refer to the memo issued by respondent No.2 vide Memo No.Ser.IIB/1228566/2021 dated 10.03.2022, wherein, it is stated that "The District Intermediate Education Officers/Nodal Officers concerned are therefore requested not to claim the remuneration in respect of the above personnel those who are crossed the age of 58 years in their jurisdictions, until orders are received in the matter." In the said proceedings, there is no specific mention regarding disengagement of services of the petitioners. Furthermore, this Court has passed the interim order dated 27.04.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.Nos.31069 and batch, and the operative portion of the said interim order is extracted hereunder:
"...In view of the same, there shall be interim suspension of Memo No.492/IE.A2/2023-2, dated 06.04.2023 issued by the respondent No.1 and consequential proceedings in Rc.No.CIE/3/2023- Services-III-CIE dated 06.04.2023 issued by the respondent No.2 and the respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to continue in service up to the age of 61 years or till the decision is taken by the Government, whichever is earlier."
14. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of the said interim order, the petitioners are continuing in service. Considering the aforesaid aspects, the respondents ought to have regularized the services of the petitioners on par with the other candidates whose services were regularized vide G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 20.07.2022. As such, the action of the respondents 10 PK,J W.P.No.30884 of 2022 & batch in not extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 20.07.2022 to the petitioners herein is highly unjustifiable. Hence, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners on par with the similarly situated persons.
15. In view of the abovemade discussion, these Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners herein on par with the other Lab Attendants, by extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.24, Higher Education (IE) Department, dated 20.07.2022 to the petitioners.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. No costs.
__________________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J Date: 26.04.2024 GSP