Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S.Laxmi Prasada Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 16 June, 2020
Author: G. Shyam Prasad
Bench: G.Shyam Prasad
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.9904 OF 2020
ORDER:
This is a Writ of Mandamus filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioner to continue in service as Lab Attender till he attains the age of 60 years, on par with the regular employees, inspite of the representation submitted by him, on 06.01.2020 which was recommended by the 3rd respondent on 08.01.2020 for consideration, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner till he attains the age of 60 years.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for School Education.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as contract worker as Waterman in Government Junior College, Pachipenta in the year 1986. There was break in service from 22.10.1990 to 30.06.1995 as his services were discontinued during that period, and later he was directed to attend the duties of Lab Attender in the Crop Production Vocation Course on 01.07.1995 as a part time worker. Since then the petitioner has been discharging his duties as a Lab Attender in the Government Junior College, Amudalavalasa, Srikakulam District and was drawing salary of Rs. 3,900/- per month from the 3rd respondent college.
2
4. In the mean time, the State Government has taken a policy decision to regularize services of part time workers in various Departments, and accordingly issued G.O.Ms.No.142 dt. 27.08.2018. The petitioner has submitted a representation on 06.01.2020 seeking to extend the benefits of the said G.O. to him, and the same is pending for consideration.
5. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner was appointed as contract labourer, his tenure was extended from time to time, considering his performance, and now he is going to attain the age of superannuation by 30.06.2020. He is completing 58 years of age. In terms of G.O.Ms.No.142 dt. 27.08.2018 the superannuation was fixed at the age of 60 years. Therefore the petitioner is entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years as per the G.O referred supra.
6. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner is entitled the benefit of the Memo dt. 13.02.2019 and the G.O.Ms.No.142 dt. 27.08.2018.
7. On consideration of the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and as the record reveals that there was correspondence between the Principal FAC, Government Junior College, Amadalavalasa and the Regional Joint Director of Intermediate Education, Rajamahendravaram, it is obvious that the petitioner had worked as part time contingent employee on a consolidated pay at Government Junior College, Pachipenta, Vizianagaram District from 01.07.1986 to 21.10.1990. Presently he is working as 3 part time Lab Attender in M.E.T Vocational course at Government Junior College, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District.
8. The petitioner has filed the Letter addressed to the Commissioner, Intermediate Education, Guntur District seeking for regularization of his service with effect from 28.06.1986, as he has been working from 1986 onwards as Lab Attender, on payment of Rs. 3,900/- per month. He has also sought for conversion of his job into Junior Assistant or to that of Office Subordinate.
9. The Memo dt. 13.02.2019 shows that the Commissioner of Intermediate Education had taken a decision to continue the contract faculties/ Part time Junior Lecturers, beyond 58 years basing on the requirement as well as their performance.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the Memo dt. 13.02.2019 the petitioner gave a representation to the 2nd respondent requesting him to continue his services on contract basis, till he attains the age of 60 years. The representation of the petitioner is pending before the respondents.
11. Having regarding that the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and the material on record referred above and since this Court vide order in W.P.No. 3382 of 2020 dt. 12.02.2020 directed the 2nd respondent to consider the representation. In view of the fact that the similar orders can be passed in this matter as e facts in the case are similar.
12. It is obvious that the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3382 of 2020 is similar to the facts of the present Writ 4 Petition. Admittedly the representation of the petitioner is pending with the 2nd respondent.
13. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is hereby directed to consider the representation dt. 06.01.2020 of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
14. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions if any is pending, shall stands closed accordingly.
_______________________ G. SHYAM PRASAD, J Date: 16-06-2020 KK