Telangana High Court
V.Eshwaraiah vs The Superintendent, 2 Others, on 9 December, 2022
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
W.P. No. 32754 of 2015
Between:
Vanam Eshwaraiah
... Petitioner
And
The Superintendent, RMS Z Division, and others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 09.12.2022
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : yes
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : yes
_________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
WP_32754_2015
2 SN,J
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P. No. 32754 of 2015
% 09.12.2022
Between:
# Vanam Eshwaraiah
... Petitioner
and
$ The Superintendent, RMS Z Division, and others
.....Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri S.Lakshmi Kanth
^Counsel for the Respondents: Deputy Solicitor General
? Cases Referred:
1. 1987 AIR 2342
WP_32754_2015
3 SN,J
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P. No. 32754 of 2015
ORDER:
Heard Sri S.Lakshmi Kanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner filed this writ petition to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in non-implementation of the Government Orders vide Memo No.37-33/2009-SPB-I, Government of India, Ministry of Communications & IT, Department of Postal, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi dated 28.01.2011 issued by the Ministry of Communications & IT, Department of Postal and also direction of the Supreme Court of India in W.P.No.373 of 1986, dated 27.10.1987, and subsequent directions of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.689 of 2011, dated 15.07.2011 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the regulations prescribed by the Government and consequently, direct the respondents to WP_32754_2015 4 SN,J issue necessary appointment orders to the petitioner as Class IV Employee by considering the previous temporary service as Regular Service.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
a) The petitioner was working as Part time casual labourer category in RMS 'Z' Division since 01.07.1988 in Andhra Pradesh Circle. At first, the petitioner was appointed at Kazipeta and subsequently was transferred to Nalgonda and again transferred to Hyderabad. So far the petitioner's services were not regularized though, being eligible in all respects including educational qualifications and the juniors, who were appointed subsequent to him, were regularized and promoted to further posts.
b) As per procedure formulated by Government of India, part time casual labourers will be converted into full time casual labourers and then they were converted into Group 'D' services by regularizing the services.
c) The seniority lists were prepared in an irregular manner.
In the 1st list circulated to the petitioner, during the tenure of K.S.Janardhanam, SRO, Kazipet, his name was shown at S.No.5, wherein the date of appointment was 01.07.1988 for WP_32754_2015 5 SN,J Kazipet Division. In the 2nd list circulated to the petitioner, during the tenure of R.Kameshwara Rao, the Superintendent RMS 'Z' Division, his name was shows at S.No.24 instead of 21, wherein the date of birth was mentioned as 08.12.1965 and date of appointment was 01.07.1988 for Kazipet Division. In fact, the petitioner's date of birth was 08.12.1962. In the 3rd list prepared on 12.05.1994 circulated to the petitioner, during the tenure of G.Devavaram, Superintendent, his name was shown at S.No.46. One V.Thirupathi Rao was placed in S.No.3, who was not in the seniority list No.1 and 2. Md.Afzaluddin and N.Ramesh, who were juniors to the petitioner were placed in S.Nos.1 and 2. Again in the 4th list circulated to the petitioner, during the tenure of G.Devavaram, dated 12.05.1994, his name was shown at S.No.23, wherein the date of appointment was mentioned as 29.11.1989 and date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 08.12.1962.
d) Except for the petitioner, the names mentioned in the 4th list were converted into Class IV Employees in 'D' category after passing of orders by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in the year 2012 without following the directions of WP_32754_2015 6 SN,J the Court. The seniority lists prepared by the authorities are not in accordance with the guidelines and circulars issued by the 3rd respondent.
e) As per the provisions of the Department of Posts (Group 'D') posts Recruitment Rules, 2002, a number of Group D posts are to be filled up inter alia as under:-
25% of the vacancies remaining unfilled after recruitment of employees from among Chowkidar, Watchman etc. (as in Serial No.2 of the Schedule to the Rules) shall be filled by selection-cum-seniority in the following order:-
a) By casual labourers with temporary status of the recruitment division or unit, failing which
b) By full-time casual labourer of the recruiting division or unit failing which
c) By full time casual labours of the neighbouring division or unit failing which
d) By part time casual labourers of the recruiting division or unit; failing which by direct recruitment.
Qualification for such posts is Middle School Standard pass.
The applicant falls within the last category, having been functioning as Part Time Casual Mazdoors.
f) In the year 2010, the respondents have amended the Recruitment Rules, whereby the posts of Group D have been classified as Multi-Tasking Staff and promulgated the Rules called 'Department of Posts Multi Tasking Staff Recruitment Rules, 2010' and as per the provisions thereof, the said Rules would come into force on the date of their publication in the WP_32754_2015 7 SN,J official Gazettee. The Gazette Notification was published on 12.12.2010. Qualifications for the above posts have been reflected as Matriculation or Equivalent or ITI from recognized Boards. In case, a casual labourer to be appointed as Multi Tasking Staff is not Matriculate he shall be given training before he is appointed. As regards allocation of posts to be filled up by casual labourers, the same is spelt out in the Recruitment Rules as under:
"(iii)(a) 25% by appointment of Casual Labourers conferred with temporary status on the basis of selection-cum-seniority failing which by:
(b) appointment of Casual Labourers engaged on or before 01.09.1993, working for eight full hours in a day, on the basis of selection-cum-seniority failing which by;
(c) appointment of Casual Labourers conferred with temporary status in the neighboring Division or Unit on the basis of selection-cum-seniority failing which by;
(d) appointment of Casual Labourers engaged on or before 01.09.1993, working for eight full hours in a day of the neighboring Division or Unit, on the basis of selection-cum-seniority failing which by;
(e) appointment of Casual Labourers engaged on or before 01.09.1993, of the recruiting Division or Unit on the basis of selection-cum-seniority failing which by;
(f) by direct recruitment from amongst Gramin Dak Sevaks of the basis of their seniority in the Division or Unit.
Failing (i)(ii) and (iii) above by direct recruitment from open market;.
g) The petitioner and another filed O.A.No.689 of 2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad about WP_32754_2015 8 SN,J the irregularities committed by the authorities while preparing the seniority list and extending the promotions to the ineligible persons. In the said OA, the Tribunal vide order dated 15.07.2011, directed the respondents to prepare seniority list and before taking any steps like promotion on the basis of the list so prepared, the same shall be communicated to all the candidates and their objections, if any, shall be called for an taken into consideration, and only then go ahead for taking further steps in the matter like promotions.
h) The respondents have not implemented the said order. Further some members were also promoted and their services were regularized during the year 2012, which is noting but disobedience in implementing the order of the Tribunal and also the spirit of the judgment of the Supreme Court.
i) The respondents have not followed the Government orders dated 28.01.2011 and that the 3rd respondent mis- interpreted the guidelines and appointed new persons, who are not in seniority list and promoted them at their whims and fancies. Subsequent to the issuance of the guidelines by the Government of India, Department of Posts, the 3rd respondent WP_32754_2015 9 SN,J issued regular direct recruitment notifications every year reserved under 75% quota and they have been recruiting the candidates, but no notification was issued for appointment of the casual labourers under Section-cum-seniority reserved under 25% quota. The 1st respondent harassed the petitioner in one way or the other and did not even permit the petitioner to attend his duties and was kept in abeyance without any reason or cause.
j) The petitioner addressed a letter on 05.06.2015 under Right to Information Act to the 3rd respondent to furnish the information in respect of the seniority lists and promotions of casual labourers from 1981. On 25.07,2015 the 3rd respondent had replied, with incomplete information, but no documents were furnished. On 05.08.2015, the petitioner sent another letter by giving clarification in respect of the posts to the letter dated 17.07.2015. Again on 14.08.2015 the 3rd respondent sent reply confirming the earlier letter dated 17.07.2015 and advised to go for appellate authority. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 24.08.2015 and the same is pending.
WP_32754_2015 10 SN,J
k) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 1987, in a judgment passed certain guidelines for regularization of services that non-regularization of the services for a long period is not a wise policy and it is nothing but violative of Fundamental Rights and it is also against the Directive Principles of State Policy, and it is nothing but to show hostile discrimination. The Managements and the Governmental agencies in particular should not allow workers to remain as casual labourers or temporary employees for an unreasonably long period of time and directed the respondents therein to prepare a scheme on a rational basis for absorbing as far as possible the casual labourers, who have been continuously working for more than one year in the Posts and Telegraphs Department. The arrears of wages payable to the casual labourers in accordance with the order shall be paid within four months from today. The respondents therein shall prepare a scheme for absorbing the casual labourer as directed above within eight months from that day i.e. 27.10.1987. But, so far neither the Government nor the respondents therein have not taken any steps to follow the guidelines of the Supreme Court. Hence, this writ petition.
WP_32754_2015 11 SN,J
4. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, in brief, is as follows:
a) The petitioner worked as part time porter for four hours per day at sub-Record Office, Railway Mail Service 'Z' Division, Kazipet w.e.f. 01.07.1988 to 23.10.1992. The arrangement orders were issued by the Sub Record Officer, Railway Mail Service 'Z' Division, Kazipet, vide memo dated 26.09.1988, listing out the names of 11 other part time porter official, along with the name of the petitioner, who was appointed as Part Time Porter official in Kazipet unit, also indicating their respective dates of arrangement, in which the name of the petitioner appeared at S.No.5. Further a part time porter seniority list of all the part time porter officials working in Railway Mail Service 'Z' Division, indicating their community, date of birth and date of appointment was submitted by the Part Time Porter officials at that time, was issued by the Superintendent, Railway Mail Service, 'Z' Division, Hyderabad, in which the name of the petitioner appeared at Sl.No.24, with Community as OC, DOB:
08.12.1965 and date of appointment 01.07.1988.
WP_32754_2015 12 SN,J
b) In the year 1993, the services of the petitioner as Part Time Porter, Kazipet were terminated by Sub-record Officer, Railway Main Service 'Z' Division, Kazipet w.e.f. 23.10.1992 vide proceedings dated 29.10.1993 since the petitioner manipulated the records in r/o his date of birth and educational qualifications by producing false certificates to get undue advantage in connection with recruitment for the post of Extra Departmental Agent, now called as Gramin Dak Sevaks. As per said proceedings the actual date of birth of the petitioner was 08.12.1962 and has studied only upto 7th class. But the petitioner had submitted a false transfer certificated issued by Zilla Parishad School, Cherukupalli with S.No.60588, Name V.Eswaraiah, date of Birth: 08.12.1962 and Class Studied : X class with an intention of getting undue advantage over other candidates with regard to appointment as Extra Department Agent, Transfer Certificate No.091611 issued by Zilla Parishad School, Deverkonda, Nalgonda District, Name : V.Eshwaraiah, with DOB as 08.12.1962 and class studied corrected as X was also submitted by the petitioner, which actually belongs to him.
WP_32754_2015 13 SN,J
c) There was a ban on appointment of casual Labourers in the Department of posts as per letter No.45-56/92, dated 01.03.1993, para 3 of clarification (4) which states that no Casual Labourer should be employed after 29.11.1989. Further the petitioner was allotted to Sub Record Office, Railway Mail Service 'Z' Division, Nalgonda by the then Superintendent, Railway Mail Service 'Z' Division, Hyderabad vide letter dated 11.05.1994, with a direction that he will occupy last place in the casual labourers of the Division, who were on Rolls prior to 29.11.1989, to enrol his name in the register of casual labourer and provide him duties innormal course along with other casual labourer. The petitioner was only allotted to Sub-record Officer, Railway Mail Service 'Z' Dn, Nalgonda, but no formal engagement orders, engaging the petitioner as Casual Labourer were issued.
d) In the year 1994, a seniority list of casual labourer working in Railway Mail Service 'Z' Division was prepared by the Superintendent, Railway Mail Service 'Z' Division, Hyderabad vide endorsement dated 12.05.1994 in which the name of the petitioner was shown at S.No.44 out of total 45 as per the directions of the Superintendent, Railway Mail WP_32754_2015 14 SN,J Service 'Z' Division, Hyderabad vide letter dated 11.05.1994. The Department of Posts vide Gazette Notification No.683 had issued Recruitment Rules for filling up the posts of Multi Tasking Staff calling them as Multi Tasking Staff Recruitment Rules, 2010 and the said rules came into force from 12.12.2010.
e) The petitioner was not transferred to Nalgonda or Hyderabad, but was allowed to perform duties at Railway Mail Service 'Z' Division. The services of the petitioner cannot be regularized as he was not engaged as part time labourer and does not possess any orders engaging him as Casual Labourer in the Department, after his termination and that the petitioner cannot claim seniority. The seniority lists prepared in irregular manner is totally false. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
PERUSED THE RECORD
6. The relevant portion of Memo No 37-33/2009- SPB-I Government of India, Ministry of Communications & IT, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi dated 28.01.2011 reads as under :
(i) 50% by direct recruitment from amongst Gramin Dak Sewaks of recruiting and Division or Unit, on the WP_32754_2015 15 SN,J basis of Selection-cum-seniority; "Gramin Dak Sewaks" are holders of civil posts but they are outside the regular civil service due to which their appointment will be by direct recruitment.
ii. (a) 25% by direct recruitment on the basis of Competitive Examination restricted to the Gramin Dak Sevaks of the Division or Unit, failing which by
(b) direct recruitment from amongst Gramin Dak Sewaks of the recruiting Division or Unit on the basis of selection-cum-seniority;
iii. (a) 25% by appointment of Casual Labourers conferred with temporary status on the basis of selection-cum-seniority falling which by:
(b) appointment of Casual Labourers engaged on or before 1-9-1993, working for eight full hours in a day, on the basis of selection-cum-seniority failing which by;
(c) appointment of Casual Labourers conferred with temporary status in the neighbouring Division or Unit on the basis of selection-cum-seniority failing which by;
(d) Appointment of Casual Labourers engaged on or before 1-9-1993, working for eight full hours in a day of the neighbouring Division or Unit; on the basis of Selection-cum-seniority failing which by;
(e) Appointment of part time Casual Labourers engaged on or before 1-9-1993, of the recruiting Division or Unit on the basis of selection-cum-seniority failing which by;
7. The relevant portion of the Order dated 27.10.1987 passed in Daily Rated Casual Labour vs. Union of India reported in 1987 AIR 2342 reads as under :
WP_32754_2015 16 SN,J "Let us remember the slogan "Produce or Perish". It is not an empty slogan. We fail to produce more at our own peril. It is against this background that we say that non-regularisation of temporary employees or casual labour for a long period is not a wise policy. We, therefore, direct the respondents to prepare a scheme on a rational basis for absorbing as far as possible the casual labourers who have been continuously working for more than one year in the Posts and Telegraphs Department".
8. The order dated 15.07.2011 passed in O.A.No.689/2011 reads as under :
Para 2 : As contended by the learned counsel for the applicant, a bare perusal of the seniority list shows that prima facie, it is not prepared properly as the 1st applicant, who is shown to have been appointed in the year 1985 is shown as last candidate and 2nd applicant, who is shown to have been appointed in the year 1989 is shown at Sl. No. 24 in the list whereas the persons who have been appointed in 1986, 1987 and 1988 etc., are all posted above 1st applicant Para 3 : The learned standing counsel on instruction reports that the department is also accepting that the seniority list was not properly prepared and they are going to prepare fresh list and that the DPC is not going to be held.
Para 4 : In the circumstances, the O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to prepare a proper seniority list and before taking any steps like promotion on the basis of the list so prepared, the same shall be communicated to all the candidates and their objections, if any, shall be called for and taken into consideration and, then only go ahead for taking further steps in the matter like promotions.
Para 5 : This O.A. is disposed of accordingly, there shall, be no order as to costs.
9. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents, particularly paras 15 to 19 reads as under:
WP_32754_2015 17 SN,J Para 15 : In reply to para 8 of the Petitioner's affidavit, I submit that as per directions of Hon'ble CAT, Hyderabad in OA No. 689/2011 (Copy of CAT order is filed as material paper), a part time casual laborer seniority list based on the lists issued by the then Superintendent, RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE "Z" Division, Sri.G.Devavaram on 12.05.1994 was prepared and sent out for circulation (Copy of appointment orders filed as material paper). I state that Sri. G. Sampath Kumar and Sri. V. Venkateswarlu were appointed as Grameen Dak Sevaks (Copy of appointment orders of both are filed as material paper) w.e.f. 21.01.1992 and 01.02.1992 respectively, where as the services of the Petitioner could not be regularized as GRAMEEN DAK SEVAK in the year 1992 along with the said Sri.G. Sampath Kumar and Sri V.Venkateswarlu as the Petitioner had submitted a false Transfer Certificate with wrong date of birth and educational qualification as 10" for getting undue advantage over others in the appointments of GRAMEEN DAK SEVAK, which was also proved during inquiry and thus his services as PART TIME PORTER were terminated w.e.f 23.10.1992, Hence the Petitioner cannot claim for regularization of his services along with the above said GRAMEEN DAK SEVAK officials. Thus the said Sri.G.Sampath Kumar and Sri.V. Venkateswarlu were working as GRAMEEN DAK SEVAK in RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE "Z" Division which is a distinct category and is no way related to part time casual labourers and were thus appointed as Multi Tasking Staff (MULTI-TASKING STAFF) among the 25% of MULTI- TASKING STAFF vacancies earmarked for filling up among GRAMEEN DAK SEVAK officials (under Clause (i) of MULTI-TASKING STAFF Recruitment Rules 2010) based on selection cum seniority (and not from the 25% quota of MULTI-
TASKING STAFF vacancies earmarked for filling up from casual labourer) (Copy of appointment orders of both are filed as material paper). Hence the appointment of the above said GRAMEEN DAK SEVAK officials cannot be compared with that of the Petitioner, who was working on contingent wages without being appointed as Casual labourer as per the rules, as the MULTI-TASKING STAFF vacancies ear marked for filling up among GRAMEEN DAK SEVAK officials based on seniority-cum- selection and WP_32754_2015 18 SN,J earmarked for filling up from Casual laborer quota, are entirely different.
16. I further submit that the appointments as MULTI- TASKING STAFF of the said Sri. G. Sampath Kumar and Sri. V. Venkateswarlu, GRAMEEN DAK SEVAK officials are governed by Clause (i) of MULTI-TASKING STAFF Recruitment Rules, 2010 and not Clause (iii) as contended by the Petitioner. Further, the names of Sri. G. Sampath Kumar and Sri. V Venkateswarlu had not figured in the seniority list issued by the then SRM, "Z" Division, Sri. G. Devavaram on 12.05.1994, as they were appointed as GRAMEEN DAK SEVAK, by then. Hon'ble CAT, Hyderabad in OA no.689/2011, had directed for preparation of seniority list of casual labourers (and not GRAMEEN DAK SEVAK officials), where as G.Sampath Kumar and Sri V.Venkateshwarlu (the names of these officials were mentioned in this para of the affidavit) were not casual labourers, but GRAMEEN DAk SEVAK officials. It is surprising to note that how the appointments of GRAMEEN DAK SEVAK officials as MULTI-TASKING STAFF be challenged as against casual labourer and state as utter disobedience of the orders of Hon'ble CAT, when Hon'ble CAT has said nothing about GRAMEEN DAK SEVAK officials. The appointments were made keeping in view of the orders issued from time to time by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Posts.
17. In reply to para 9 of the Petitioner's affidavit, I submit that appointments to the cadre of MULTI- TASKING STAFF were made in accordance with the MULTI-TASKING STAFF Recruitment Rules issued in 2010 by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Posts. Further the 3rd Respondent misinterpreting the guidelines of 3rd Respondent and appointing new persons who are not in the seniority list and got promoted them at their whims and fancies is totally baseless as the 3rd Respondent is not the Competent Authority for filling up of MULTI-TASKING STAFF Vacancies in RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE "Z" Division. Then the question of 3rd Respondent misinterpreting the guidelines and appointing new person who are not in the seniority list does not arise.
WP_32754_2015 19 SN,J
18. In reply to para 10 & 11 of the Petitioner's affidavit, I submit that NO seniority list was prepared by 3rd Respondent (as the 3rd Respondent is no way concerned with the casual labourers working in the RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE "Z" Division) and thus accepting the irregularities committed and not following the directions of Hon'ble CAT does not arise. No orders were issued in regard to non-permitting the Petitioner to duties nor kept in abeyance, which is very much evident as the Petitioner is attending to duties, on contingent basis, at SUB-RECORD OFFICER, RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE "Z" Division, Nalgonda, currently. Hence the allegation that the Petitioner is being harassed, humiliated and abused is all false and baseless. A suitable reply to the legal notice dated 05.08.2015 was given to the Petitioner on 19.10.2015 (Copy of the same is filed as material paper). I submit that absorption of casual laborer was done as per the instructions and rules on the subject, issued by Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Departments of Posts, from time to time.
19. In reply to para 12 to 14 of the affidavit, I submit that it is repetition of false allegations by the Petitioner. The information sought by the Petitioner under Right to Information Act was supplied to him vide 1st Respondent letter no. INV/RTI ACT/2005/June/07/2015 dated 17.07.2015 (Copy of the same is filed as material paper) with a clear direction to go for appeal to next higher authority if not satisfied, and also giving the details of the Appellate Authority. The Petitioner had also preferred an appeal under Right to Information Act, against the information supplied by the 1st Respondent to the 2nd Respondent (who is the first Appellate Authority). But the petitioner is making a false allegation that the Petitioner was not supplied with information sought under RTI. Though the Petitioner is aware of his services being terminated in 1993 by SUB-RECORD OFFICER, RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE "Z" Division, Kazipet, he kept the Hon'ble Court in dark by not mentioning the same and is trying to make a false claim. As the services of the Petitioner were terminated and was allowed to work at SUB-RECORD OFFICER, Nalgonda along with other casual laborer, he WP_32754_2015 20 SN,J cannot claim for regularization of his services, based on his earlier working as PART TIME PORTER. The position of the Petitioner, in the seniority list ceases, the moment his services were terminated. I again submit here that the Respondents have acted as per the Recruitment rules issued from time to time by Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Posts.
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION :
10. The Legal Notice of the Petitioner dated 04.08.2015 addressed to the 1st Respondent herein pointed out the grievance of the Petitioner herein as three fold:
1. The Respondents have not followed the Government Order dated 28.01.2011 issued by the Ministry of Communications and IT Department of Posts.
2. The orders dated 15.07.2011 in O.A.No.689/2011 are not being followed and are being disobeyed.
3. The orders of the Apex Court in Daily Rated Casual Labour vs. Union of India reported in 1987 AIR 2342 are not being followed and are being disobeyed.
11. The Legal Notice of the Petitioner dated 04.08.2015 was duly considered by the 1st Respondent WP_32754_2015
21 SN,J herein and a detailed order dated 19.10.2015 was passed duly communicating the said order to the concerned Counsel who issued the said legal notice on behalf of the Petitioner and the same is extracted hereunder :
A kind reference is invited to your notice dt. 04.08.2015 received in this office on 06.08.2015 in response to the said notice, it is to intimate that Sri V. Eshwaraiah, was working as Part Time Causal Labour at Kazipet w.e.f. 01.07.1988 and his services were terminated by Sub Record Officer, RMS 'Z' Division, Kazipet w.e.f. 23.10.1992. There was a ban on recruitment of Casual Labourers w.e.f. 29.11.1989.
Though the services of Sri V. Eshwaraiah were terminated, on the request/pleading made by Sri V.Eshwaraiah he was allowed to work at Sub Record Office, Nalgonda, as an act of mercy, as Casual Labour without issue of any orders appointing him as Casual Labour as per Rules. His name was included at the end of the in the seniority list of Casual Labourers working in RMS 'Z' Divn. as on 12.05.1994, though he was not appointed as such, after his termination in 1992.
As per the directions of the Hon'ble CAT in OA No.689/2011, a fresh seniority list of Causal labourers working in RMS 'Z' Division was prepared based on the seniority list prepared by the then SRM 'Z' Divn. Hyd, dt. 12.05.1994 and sent out for circulation.
The allegations that the said Sri V.Eshwaraiah, was harassed, humiliated & abused in unparliamentary and that he was transferred to Nalgonda are all false & baseless.
This is for your information.
12. A bare perusal of the averments made by the Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 in the Counter affidavit filed WP_32754_2015 22 SN,J on behalf of the Respondents paras 15 to 19 extracted above and also the reply of the 1st Respondent to the Legal Notice dt. 04.08.2015 on 19.10.2015 (extracted above) clearly indicates that no seniority list was prepared by the 3rd Respondent, and further the 3rd Respondent is not competent authority for filling up the multi tasking staff vacancies in Railway Mail Service ("Z" Division) and further that the Petitioner does not come under the eligible category of Officials under any of the clauses (i) (ii) and (iii) of the Multi Tasking Staff Recruitment Rules 2010 and hence Petitioner's claim for regularizing Petitioner's services as MULTI TASKING STAFF cannot be considered and further that as per the directions of the Hon'ble CAT in OA No.689/2011 a part time casual labourer seniority list based on the list issued by the then Superintendent, RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE ('Z' Division) Sri G.Devavaram on 12.05.1994 was prepared and sent out for circulation.
13. Taking into consideration the above referred facts and circumstances and the averments made by the Respondents in paras 15 to 19 of the Counter Affidavit WP_32754_2015 23 SN,J extracted above, the Writ Petition is dismissed since the same is devoid of merits. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Date: 09.12.2022 Note: L.R. Copy to be marked b/o kvrm