Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
G. Someswara Rao vs Iaddl. Jfcm. And 2 Ors. on 11 June, 2001
Author: S.B. Sinha
Bench: S.B. Sinha
JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, C.J.
1. These Writ Petitions involving common questions of fact and law were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The petitioners in all these writ petitioners who are working as part time masalchies in various Subordinate Courts in the State are seeking regularisation of their services.
3. The petitioner in W.P.No.26327 of 1999 inter alia prayed for issuance of a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in refusing to regularise his services as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified, and for a direction to the respondents to regularise his services on par with other class IV employees from the date of his initial appointment with all consequential benefits.
He claims that he was appointed on 22.2.1989 as a part time masalchi in II Additional Court, Amalapuram. He allegedly was continued in the said post till 14.1.1993 when his services were terminated and he was allegedly again taken into service and at present continuing in service as part-time masalchi. The petitioner contends that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.4.1994 he was entitled to be regularised having regard to the fact that he has completed five years service as on 25.11.1993. According to the petitioner his case is squarely covered by a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in G.GEDDAMMA & ORS v GOVERNMENT OF A.P1.
4. It appears that earlier the petitioner herein along with one Sri G. Someswara Rao had filed a writ petition which was marked as W.P.No.33155 of 1997 for regularisation of their services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.4.1994 wherein a learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 16.2.1998 directed the District Judge to consider his case in the light of G. GEDDAMMA's case (supra). The District Judge in his letter-dated 4.4.1998 requested the High Court to process the proposal for regularisation of their services.
5. It appears from the certificate-dated 18.10.1999 issued by the II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram that the petitioner had worked from 22.2.1989 to 14.1.1993 as part time masalchi in terms of office order dated 22.2.1989 and his services were terminated vide proceedings No.15.1.1993. From another certificate it appears that without any proceedings he had again been working from 15.1.1993 till the date of the certificate i.e. 22.5.1999.
6. It is not in dispute that in relation to employees working on part-time basis, the State Government had issued another G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 23.7.97. It appears that the District Judge has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he does not fulfill the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.112.
7. A counter affidavit, affirmed by the District Judge, East Godavari, has been filed contending that as the conditions under G.O.Ms.no.112 were not fulfilled, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
8. A learned single Judge of this Court has held in Geddemma's case that G.O.Ms.No.212 would apply even in the case of part time employees. However, the said decision has been reversed by the apex court in C.A.No.5224 of 1998 (Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. G. Geddamma and others) by order dated 26.10.1998 which is in the following terms:
The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. According to the counsel for the respondent, Respondent Nos.1 and 15 are full timers while respondent Nos.2 to 14 are part timers. Those who are in part time employment will get the benefit of G.O.(P) No.112 dated 23.10.1997 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Finance and Planning Department in terms of that G.O. Those are in full time employment will get the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.4.1994 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Finance & Planning Department in terms of that G.O.Ms. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
9. As admittedly the petitioner had not completed ten years of continuous service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.112 as on 25.11.1993 when A.P. (Regulation of appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structures) Act, 1994 came into force, no relief can be granted to him.
10. In W.P.No.21414 of 1998, the petitioners who are eight in number prayed for the following relief:
That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in paying Rs.500/- per month which is less than last grade scale and in not regularizing their services, duly sanctioning the permanent posts without insisting on age, is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of articles 14, 21, 23 and 39(d) of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners duly sanctioning the permanent Masalchies posts in respective Courts without insisting on age.
10. The petitioners claim that though they have been working as part-time masalchies in various Courts at Vijayawada from 1.4.1983, 18.1983, 16.1.1987, 1.12.1987, 1.9.1988, 1.9.1988, 1.5.1989, 1.12.1992, 1.5.1993 and 20.12.1992 respectively on consolidated pay, their services have not so far been regularised nor they have been granted regular scale of pay on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. They contend that in terms of the various Government Orders and by reason of the Judgment of this Court in G. Gaddemma (supra), they are entitled for regularisation of their services.
11. In the counter filed by the 4th respondent, it is stated that the petitioners are not regular masalchies as classified in Category 8 of Rule 2 of A.P. Last Grade Service Rules, 1992 and they are only part-time masalchies. The petitioners did not possess the requisite qualifications for being appointed as attenders in Last Grade Service as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.456 GAD dated 27.8.1981 and G.O.Ms.No.630, GA (SM) Department dated 23.12.1983. The various orders issued by the Government for regularisation of services are applicable only to full time contingent posts and full time contingent employees. The counter-affidavit further states that as per G.O.(P).No.112 dated 23.7.1997, as on the cut off date ie 25.11.1993 only petitioners 1 and 2 had completed minimum service of ten years for regularisation of the services and even these petitioners did not fulfill the educational qualification as also the qualification of age.
To the same effect is the counter filed by the Government.
12. The petitioner in W.P.No.24506 pf 1998 was appointed as part time Masalchi on 1.8.1988 in Additional District Munsif Court, Nandikotkur, Kurnool district. Though he worked as full time masaclhi for a period of two years, he is continuing as part-time masalchi only, till date. This petitioner also prayed for a similar relief as in the case of W.P.No.21414 of 1998.
13. In the counter filed by the 4th respondent it is stated that since the petitioner had not put in ten years of service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.259 dated 18.6.1993 or G.O.(P).No.112 dated 23.7.1997 as on 25.11.1993, he is not entitled for regularisation of his services.
14. Now, in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. G. Geddamma - Civil Appeal No.5224 of 1998 - (supra), it is beyond any cavil of doubt that G.O.Ms.No.212 is not applicable to part-time contingent employees or part-time masalchies. The said G.O. would be applicable only in respect of persons appointed on daily wage basis/NMRs or temporary employees where the appointments were not made in accordance with the recruitment procedure etc. and where such employees had worked continuously for a minimum period of five years and are continuing as on 25.11.1993 and also subject to fulfillment of the conditions laid down therein.
15. However, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.(P).No.112 Finance and Planning (FWPC.III) Department dated 23.7.1997 formulating a scheme for regularisation of the services of persons appointed on part-time basis, evidently, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.24471 of 1996 dated 25.4.1997, the relevant portion whereof reads thus:
Government accordingly after careful consideration of this issue hereby formulate a scheme for regularisation of the services of the persons appointed on part-time basis. Government have taken a decision that the services of such persons who have worked continuously as part-time workers for a minimum period of ten years and are continuing as on 25.11.1993 the date on which the A.P. (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994, (Act 2 of 1994) came into force be regularized by the appointing authorities subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions.
1. Absorption shall be against clear vacancies of posts considered necessary to be continued as per workload excluding the vacancies already notified to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission or as the case may be, the District Selection Committee.
2. The persons appointed should possess the qualifications prescribed as per rules in force as on the date from which his or her services have to be regularized.
3. The persons should be within the age limit as on the date of appointment as part-time employee.
4. The Rule of reservation wherever applicable will be followed and backlog will be set off against future vacancies.
5. The sponsoring of candidate from Employment Exchange is relaxed.
6. If there are two candidates, one part-time and the second one al full-time employee (Daily Wage employee) of any category or name and there exists only one vacancy, the senior most between the two in terms of continuous service already rendered prior to 25.11.1993 treating two years of part-time service as one year of full-time service, relative seniority will be calculated and regularisation will be suggested for the senior among the two accordingly.
7. The regularisation of services of full-time employees already made in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department dated 22.4.1994 will not be reopened for giving effect to the present order.
16. From the above, it is clear that only part-time employees who fulfill the conditions laid down in G.O.(P).No.112 are entitled for regularisation of their services. From the facts stated above, obviously the petitioners in all the Writ Petitions are not entitled to claim regularisation of their services as they do not fulfil the requirements of the said G.O.(P).
17. The petitioner in W.P.No.26327 of 1999 was appointed only on 22.2.1989 as part-time masalchi and as such he is not entitled for regularisation of services for the reason that he has not completed the requisite minimum period of ten years of service as on 25.11.1993.
So far as the petitioners in W.P.No.21414 of 1998 are concerned, only petitioners 1 and 2 had completed ten years of service for consideration of their cases. Even these two petitioners are not entitled to be considered for regularisation of services, as, it appears from the counter-affidavit that they did not fulfill the other requirements as regards the educational qualifications and age.
The Petitioner in W.P.No.24506 of 1999 is also not entitled to be considered for regularisation of his services as per G.O.(P).No.112 as he had not completed ten years of continuous service as on 25.11.1993.
18. For the reasons aforementioned, we find no merit in the Writ Petitions and they are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.