Telangana High Court
G. Venkateshwarlu, Nalgonda Dist. vs M.D., Transco, Hyd. And 2 Ors. on 23 July, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.35680 of 2012
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, more particularly, respondent No.3 in issuing the impugned order vide Lr.No.DE/OP/SRPT/JAO/ADM/D.No.2195/12 dated 16.10.2012, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had joined the services of respondent Corporation on 19.09.1989 as a Village Electricity Worker, and he had been working as such, until the respondents prevented him from discharging his duties in December, 1997. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for an interview on 08.02.1999, after which, he was once permitted to discharge his duties, by re-employing him in the same post of Village Electricity Officer from March, 2002. However, without assigning any reasons, the respondents once again orally terminated him on 01.08.2002. Thus, the petitioner approached the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, and filed I.D.No.31 of 2005, which was allowed vide award dated 24.10.2006, setting aside the oral termination order dated 2 PK, J W.P.No.35680 of 2012 01.08.2002, and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner as Village Electricity Worker, with continuity of service but not back wages and attendant benefits. Thereafter, in compliance with the award of the Labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated into service as a Junior Lineman on yearly contract basis, and he has been working as such since 30.06.2008, without any remarks. However, while the respondents regularized the services of the employees who have continuously worked for more than one year, in spite of availability of vacancies, the petitioner's services were not regularized. As such, he was constrained to file W.P.No.8975 of 2012 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.07.2012, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.02.2012 and pass appropriate orders. However, the present impugned order dated 16.10.2012 has been passed, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Heard Sri K. Ram Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3
PK, J W.P.No.35680 of 2012
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the services of the petitioner's juniors, viz., Mr. M. Venkat Reddy, Mr. Ch. Ratna Sekhar and Mr. P. Lakshmaiah, who were also initially appointed as Village Electricity Workers and later worked as Junior Linemen on contract basis from 20.08.2002, were regularized w.e.f., 10.02.2005. However, the case of the petitioner was arbitrarily and illegally rejected by respondent No.3 on untenable and unsustainable grounds. It is contended that the respondents have shown a discriminatory treatment in the case of the petitioner, alleging that he was absent to duty at the time of the notification. However, it was the respondents who had illegally terminated the petitioner's services on 01.08.2002, and the petitioner was pursuing the I.D. It is further submitted that the respondents considered the case of one similar placed candidate, Mr. Miryala Venkat Reddy, who was also unavailable on the date of publication of the notification in the local newspaper, and regularized his services in 2005. As such, the respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner too, for regularization.
5. It is further submitted that the petitioner had passed I.T.I. in Electrical Trade, and that although B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997 had been withdrawn in 2007, since his claim for regularization is 4 PK, J W.P.No.35680 of 2012 prior to the said withdrawal, the petitioner is eligible for regularization, more so, with effect from 1997 itself. It is also submitted that even assuming the said B.P.Ms.No.36 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, he is still entitled for regularization of his services, since he has completed more than one year of service from the date of his appointment on 30.06.2008, on par with his juniors. As such, it is contended that the impugned rejection order dated 16.10.2012, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, contrary to law and in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays this Court to allow the present writ petition by setting aside the impugned rejection order dated 16.10.2012 and to direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits. In support of his claim, the petitioner relies on the decision of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in M.V. Chalapathi and another v. Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others 1.
6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that though the petitioner was initially engaged as a Village Electricity Worker during 1989, he was not in continuous 1 1999 (3) ALD 644 (DB) 5 PK, J W.P.No.35680 of 2012 service until 1997, as he had worked during the said period with irregular and intermittent breaks, whereas, Mr. M. Venkat Reddy, Mr. Ch. Ratna Sekhar, although they were juniors to the petitioner, they had worked continuously without any gap on musters. Further, they were present as on the date of the advertisement/notification, and attended interview. Therefore, they were appointed as Contract Junior Linemen, and their services were regularized w.e.f., 10.05.2005. However, the petitioner was in a habit of absconding from duties intermittently. As such, his request for regularization was denied due to his irregular attendance to his duties, as reported by the Village Sarpanch. It is further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that Mr. M. Venkat Reddy, was not available as on the date of publication of the notification is incorrect, as he was on muster rolls, yet attended the interview in terms of the notification issued in the local newspaper. As such, his case was considered for regularization along with the similarly situated candidates. Thus, there is no discriminatory treatment against the petitioner.
7. It is further submitted that in the year 2005, the petitioner approached the Labour Court and filed I.D.No.31 of 2005, and in pursuance of the award passed by the Labour Court dated 24.10.2006, the petitioner was continued as Contract Labour on 6 PK, J W.P.No.35680 of 2012 daily-wage basis, but not as a Junior Lineman, and he has been working as such since 30.06.2008 only. Further, had the petitioner been on muster rolls continuously on par with his colleagues, his case would have been considered and his services would also have been regularized along with colleagues. Further, as per the notification issued under the said B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997, the candidates who were working as Village Electricity Workers continuously as on the date of the notification have applied for the post of contract Junior Lineman, and those candidates fulfilling the conditions envisaged in B.P.Ms.No.36 had been selected as contract Junior Linemen, whereas, petitioner, who secured the I.T.I. qualification, never rendered his services continuously, remained absent to duty in the year 2002, did not fulfill the conditions prescribed in B.P.Ms.No.36, and had only approached the authorities after the withdrawal of the said B.P.Ms.No.36. Therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for regularization of his services.
8. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not directly engaged by the Corporation, but was rendering his services under the control of the Village Sarpanch. Further, the understanding of the petitioner that the services of the candidates who worked continuously for more than one year have been regularized is also 7 PK, J W.P.No.35680 of 2012 incorrect. It is submitted that the services of a candidate will be regularized after completion of a continuous period of one year, as per the regulations of the organization, if such candidates has been appointed against a regular post. However, in the case of the petitioner, he has been engaged as a Contract Labour, but not as a regular employee. Hence, his services cannot be regularized and the respondents are justified in issuing the impugned rejection order dated 16.10.2012. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.
9. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions/contentions urged by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.
10. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as a Village Electricity Worker in 1989 and after working as such until 1997, his services were discontinued. Subsequently, his services were once again re- engaged during March 2002, which have been orally terminated on 01.08.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Labour Court, challenging his termination, and filed in I.D.No.31 of 2005, which was allowed vide award dated 24.10.2006, setting aside the oral termination, and the respondents were directed to reinstate the 8 PK, J W.P.No.35680 of 2012 petitioner into service with continuity of service, however, without back wages and attendant benefits. The relevant portion of the said award is extracted hereunder:
"5) POINT : Petitioner as WW1 deposed that he joined the respondent as VEW on 19-9-1989 and worked continuously till May, 1995. Petitioner further deposed that he again joined in February, 2002 and he attended for interview conducted by the respondent and even there after worked continuously as VEW till August, 2002 when he was removed. He deposed that he was appointed as VEW by Sarpanch of Nutunkal Mandal and sarpanch used to pay wages to the petitioner. MW1 also deposed that the department used to pay half of the salary and remaining half sarpanch used to pay to the petitioner. WW1 also deposed that assistant engineer used to pay Rs.150/- per month. It is suggested to WW1 that President used to pay rs.150/- per month and in addition APSEB used to pay Rs.150/- per month i.e. total amount of Rs.300/-. Even as can be understood from the stand taken by the respondent, petitioner was paid salary by sarpanch and the department, and the petitioner worked as VEW as workman of respondent only even though his services were rendered in the village. Ex.W1 is appointment order given by the Divisional Engineer, Electrical of the respondent and MW1 admitted the said fact. Ex.W1 was not issued by the sarpanch concerned. There was direction to the sarpanch to issued appointment order separately as VEW. So it can be believed that petitioner worked as VEW under the control of the respondent only and under the supervision of the department even though he worked under the limits of gram panchayat. Salary was paid by the department and sarpanch equally. Department paid grant in aid for payment of salary as can be seen from Ex. W1. Petitioner joined on 19-9-89 as per joining report in Ex. W2. Petitioner gave representation as in Ex.W4 for regularization for service. WW1 deposed that he worked continuously without any break and that he was removed in August, 2002 without any notice or payment of retrenchment compensation. MW1 also deposed that petitioner was not given any notice nor paid compensation. MW1 deposed that petitioner worked as VEW continuously from 1989 to 1997.
From the evidence on record and documentary evidence produced on behalf of petitioner, it can be believed that petitioner worked continuously for more than 240 days prior to termination in August, 2002. Respondent has not filed any documents to contradict the evidence of petitioner. There is no material to show that petitioner was absent continuously while working as VEW. No notice was issued to that extent by the sarpanch or the department. So it is believed that petitioner continuously worked 9 PK, J W.P.No.35680 of 2012 for more than 240 days in one year preceeding the date of termination. Admittedly respondent has not issued any notice prior to termination nor paid retrenchment compensation as required U/s. 25-F of I.D. Act. The said provision is violated by the respondent before terminating the petitioner from service.
It is held in decision reported in 1996 LLR 488 (Good Year India Ltd., vs. Vijay Kumar and another) 'that when petitioner worked for more than 240 days in calendar year and his services were terminated amounting to retrenchment and so it shall be set aside.' The same principle was laid down in decision reported in 1998 LLR 576 (T. Yadamma vs. National Remote Sensing Agency, Hyderabad and other ). It is held that even though the workman has worked as casual workman yet the termination amounts to illegal retrenchment contravening Sec. 25-F of I.D Act.
By following the principles in the above decision, this Court has no hesitation to hold that retrenchment of petitioner by respondent is illegal being in contravention to the mandatory provisions of Sec. 25 - F of I.D. Act. So termination of the petitioner amounting to retrenchment is held as invalid and respondent shall reinstate the petitioner as village electricity worked on daily wages by paying SSR rates with continuity of service but without back wages and attendant benefits. Point is answered accordingly.
In the result, award is passed and removed order dt.1-8- 2002 amounting to retrenchment is set aside and respondent shall reinstate the petitioner as village electricity worker with continuity of service but without back wages and attendant benefits. Award shall be implemented after expiry of one month from the date of its publication U/s.17 - A of the I.D. Act."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Admittedly, the aforesaid award had attained finality and in compliance with the said award, the respondents have also reinstated the petitioner on 30.06.2008. Now the main dispute in the present writ petition pertains to the denial of regularization of the services of the petitioner.
10
PK, J W.P.No.35680 of 2012
12. As can be seen from the impugned order dated 16.10.2012 and as stated by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, the primary ground for rejection of the request of the petitioner for regularization of his services is that he did not render a continuous service. However, it is to be noted that the Labour Court, while allowing I.D.No.31 of 2005, categorically observed that the petitioner had worked continuously for more than 240 days prior to his termination, and also granted continuity of service. Hence, it can be construed that the stand taken by the respondents is directly contrary to the award of the Labour Court dated 24.10.2006. As such, the respondents are estopped from taking such plea to deny regularization of the services of the petitioner. Further, when the petitioner was reinstated with continuity of service, he was deemed to have been in service throughout the said period.
13. Further, according to the respondents, the second ground for rejection of the petitioner's claim is that he was not on the muster rolls as on the date of the notification. However, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner's absence was not voluntary but was a consequence of the oral termination order issued by the respondents themselves. As such, the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner was absent to his duties during the relevant point of time 11 PK, J W.P.No.35680 of 2012 for denial of the benefit of regularization, cannot be countenanced. Further, the petitioner contends that he was treated discriminatorily, as the services of his juniors were regularized in 2005, while he was denied the similar benefit. According to the petitioner, the services of his colleagues, viz., Mr. M. Venkat Reddy, Mr. Ch. Ratna Sekhar and Mr. P. Lakshmaiah, have been regularized in the year 2005, and thus, he claims a similar benefit. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in M.V. Chalapathi (supra), observed the need and importance of fair treatment of the employees for consideration of regularization of their services. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
"3. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the respondents - Corporation themselves having conceded before this Court in Writ Petition No.26111 of 1998 with respect to similarly situated persons for regularisation of their services from the date of their initial appointment, cannot be permitted to take a different stand and deny the claim of the appellants herein who are similarly placed like the petitioners in WP No.26111 of 1998.
4. The respondent - Corporation, being an ideal employer, and in the interest of industrial peace and to avoid frustration and heart-burning among the co-workers, cannot take the stand of pick and choose for regularisation of services of similarly situated workmen. With respect to persons appointed in 1984 and who were given regularisation with effect from 1986 by the Corporation were ordered to be given regularsation in 1998 with effect from the date of their initial appointment in Writ Petition No.26111 of 1998 and in the said WP there was no opposition by the Corporation for giving such relief, but, in the case of petitioners herein, their claim for regularisation was opposed on the hyper-technical ground of 'laches'. Ground of 'laches' is not an absolute bar. Court is 12 PK, J W.P.No.35680 of 2012 expected to condone the same in order to do justice and put the persons on the same pedestal as similarly situated persons are being treated by the Corporation. The Corporation, on their own act and conduct, having granted relief to some persons similarly situated, cannot take a different stand and deny the benefit of regularisation of services to the appellants on the ground of approaching this Court belatedly.
5. In the light of the observations made above, the order of the learned single Judge is set aside. The appeal is accepted. The respondents are directed to consider the cases of the appellants for regularisation of their services notionally with effect from the date they were entitled to. It is made clear that the appellants shall be given the same benefits which have been granted by the respondents in respect of similarly situated persons. There shall be no order as to costs."
14. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is fully eligible for regularization of his services on par with his colleagues, whose services were regularized in the year 2005. Therefore, the impugned rejection order dated 16.10.2012 is unsustainable in the eye of law, and is therefore, liable to be set aside.
15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order vide Lr.No.DE/OP/SRPT/JAO/ADM/D.No.2195/12 dated 16.10.2012 issued by respondent No.3, and the respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services on par with his juniors, whose services were regularized w.e.f., 10.02.2005, along with all consequential benefits, and pass appropriate orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law, 13 PK, J W.P.No.35680 of 2012 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.
_________________________________ JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Date: 23.07.2025.
GSP