Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
B. Doddappa vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its ... on 26 July, 2022
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.1715 of 2012
ORDER :
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-
"to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned proceedings No.A7/1923/2005, dated 23.5.2005 issued by the respondent No.2 herein rejecting the request made by the petitioner for regularization of his service on par with the Work Inspectors who are regularized vide G.O.Rt.No.265, dated 6.9.2003 along with the conveyance allowances as being illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to pay the difference of Salary after fixing the petitioner in the cadre of Junior Assistant along with the conveyance allowance and to pass such other order or orders......."
2. The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to SC community and also handicapped person. In pursuance of the backlog vacancies of Work Inspectors Technical and Non- Technical in the 2nd respondent corporation, the petitioner was sponsored by the District Employment Exchange and later he was selected and appointed as Work Inspector (Non-Technical) vide proceedings Rc.No.1013/92/APSHC/E, dated 21.10.1992 of the District Collector, A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited, Chittoor on regular basis and ever since he has been discharging his duties with utmost satisfaction. It is stated that though the petitioner has been appointed on regular basis, he was paid only consolidated salary, instead of paying the salaries as per S.S.R. rates. In that regard, the petitioner has requested the 2nd respondent authority on several occasion 2 as he is entitled to be paid the regular pay scale but not the consolidated pay and for payment of the conveyance allowance meant for physically handicapped persons in terms of G.O.Ms.No.2074 finance and Planning, dated 12.7.1993 @ 10% of the basic pay. After repeated requests, the petitioner along with other similarly situated persons were given the Minimum of the Time Scale w.e.f. 1.10.1997 pending regularization of service and vide order dated 23.02.1998 the petitioner was sanctioned the conveyance allowance @ 10% of the basic pay w.e.f. 1.10.1997.
While so, as there was a SC & ST backlog vacancy of Junior Assistant in the 2nd respondent corporation and since he was entitled for the said post, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant vide proceedings No.A3/83337/99-2, dated 27.05.1999. But in the said proceedings the appointment of the petitioner was wrongly printed as Non-Technical Work Inspector (NMR) instead of Non-Technical Work Inspector on regular basis. It is further stated that some of the similarly situated persons who were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and selected and appointed like the petitioner in the SC backlog vacancy of Work Inspector both in Technical and Non-Technical, have filed WP No.10652 of 1996 for regularization of their services and also for payment of time scale of pay and the same was allowed on 19.2.2002. in pursuance of the said judgment, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.265 dated 6.9.2003 directing the 2nd respondent for 3 regularization of the services of 47 Work Inspectors who were recruited under SC/ST backlog vacancies in the year 1992.
It is further stated that though the representation did not consider by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.6096 of 2005 before this Court and the same was disposed of on 23.3.2005 directed the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner. However, in pursuance of the above orders, the 2nd respondent has passed impugned proceedings No.A7/1923/2005, dated 23.5.2005 rejected the request made by the petitioner. Since the petitioner has been regularized in the post of Non-Technical Work Inspector (Regular) on 2.11.1992 and the petitioner is entitled for fixation of pay scale w.e.f 2.11.1992 onwards, but the 2nd respondent erroneously treated his recruitment as fresh recruitment in the order Junior Assistant under direct recruitment of SC/STs in 1999 and further foregone his services rendered in the cadre of Non-Technical Work Inspector. In fact the similarly situated persons who were recruited along with the petitioner and basing on their regularization their pay scale is very higher than the petitioner though he is also entitled for the same pay scale on par with the others. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent denying all the averments made in the petition and contended that the petitioner who was engaged as Non-Technical Work Inspector (NMR) has applied for the post of Junior Assistant on par with others sponsored by the Employment Exchange and 4 selected by the selection committee and appointed as Junior Assistant, afresh under direct recruitment in SC backlog vacancies, in the time scale of Rs.1745-3420 vide MD Proc.No.A3/8337/99-2 dated 27.5.1999. since it is a fresh recruitment to other cadre i.e., Junior Assistant which carries higher time scale than that of Non Technical Work Inspector under direct recruitment of SC/STs backlog vacancies, the petitioner has foregone his earlier services rendered to the Corporation in the cadre of Non Technical Work Inspectors on NMR basis.
It is further stated that the services of 47 Work Inspectors who were recruited under SC/ST backlog vacancies were regularized in the year 1992 vide sG.O.Ms.No.265, Housing (U&IAY) Department, dated 6.9.2003 and Memo No.A7/4580/96, dated 16.9.2003 of the Managing Director, A.P. State Housing Corporation, Hyderabad. In this context, it is to be noted that the services of some of the Tech/Non Technical Work Inspectors who were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and selected under SC backlog vacancies of Tech/Non Technical Work Inspectors have been regularized as per the orders of the Government dated 16.9.2003. the petitioner, by the time of issuance of GO by the government and orders of the Managing Director, A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited has already been selected by the Committee and appointed as Junior Assistant in the time scale of 1745-3420 w.e.f. 27.5.1999 vide Proc. No.A3/8337/99-2, dated 27.5.1999 of the Managing Director, A.P. State Housing 5 Corporation Limited, Hyderabad which carries higher time scale than that of Non-Technical Work Inspector. The petitioner accepted the condition that he shall be forego the service rendered in the cadre of Non Technical Work Inspector on NMR basis since he was recruited as a fresh candidate to the cadre of Junior Assistant. As such the claim of the petitioner may not be considered. Finally it is stated that in pursuance of the orders of this Court dated 19.02.2002 in WP No.10651 of 1996, the 2nd respondent vide Proc.No.A7/1923/2005, dated 23.05.2005 while mentioning details and considering the orders of this Court, rejected his claim. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner while reiterating the contents made by the 2nd respondent in their counter and stated that in similar circumstances in respect of one Mr. K.V. Ramana, who Non-Technical Work Inspector was appointed as Junior Assistant under SC/ST backlog posts and he was paid the scale of the post of Junior Assistant above the stage of pay drawn by him in earlier post of Non-Technical Work Inspector as per F.R. 22(q)(iv)r/w F.R.22 (qa)(i). The 2nd respondent addressed the said Memo to all the District Managers to follow the above rule. In view of the said memo, the petitioner is also entitled for the same benefit as was given pursuant to the Memo dated 16.9.1999. In pursuance of the said Memo dated 16.9.1999 the District Manager followed the same in respect of one Mr S.K. Durga Prasad, Junior Assistant vide Procs. Rc.No.1372/2000/A dated 6.9.2000. But this fact 6 is suppressed by the 2nd respondent in his counter. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition.
5. Heard Mr. K. Mohan Rami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. E.V. Jagannadha Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSHCL appearing for the respondents.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on regular basis and was paid only consolidated salary instead of paying the salaries as per SSR rates. It is also not in dispute that vide order dated 10.1.1998 the petitioner along with other similarly situated persons were given the Minimum of the Time Scale w.e.f. 1.10.1997 pending regularization of the services and vide order dated 23.2.1998 the petitioner was sanctioned the conveyance allowance @ 10% of the basic pay w.e.f. 1.10.1997.
7. As per G.O.Rt.No.265, dated 6.9.2003, the Government after careful examination of the proposal ordered to regularize the services of 47 Work Inspectors Technical and Non-Technical who were recruited under SC/ST Backlog vacancies in the year 1992 with all consequential benefits as ordered by this Court in W.P.No.10651 of 1996, dated 19.02.2002. It clearly establishes that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as claimed by him as he was appointed as Work Inspector (Non-Technical) vide proceedings No.Rc.No.1013/ 92/APSHC/E, dated 21.10.1992 and he was given Minimum of Time Scale w.e.f. 1.10.1997. However, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings No.A7.1923/2005, dated 23.5.2005 has rejected 7 the request of the petitioner stating that the claim of the petitioner for considering regularization of his services on par with the Work Inspectors who are regularized vide G.O.Ms.No.265 (U&IAY) Department, dated 6.9.2003 in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 19.02.2002 inW.P.No.10651 of 1996.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions made by both the learned counsels, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings No.A7/1923/2005, dated 23.05.2005 issued by the 2nd respondent rejecting the request made by the petitioner for regularization of his services on par with the work Inspectors who are regularized vide G.O.Rt.No.265 dated 6.9.2003 along with the conveyance allowance, is hereby set aside.
9. Accordingly the Writ petition is allowed directing the 2nd respondent to pay the difference of salary after fixing the petitioner in the cadre of Junior Assistant along with conveyance allowance. This exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 26 -07-2022 Gvl 8 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.1715 of 2012 Date : 26 .07.2022 Gvl