Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

28. Section 6 deals with the penalties to be imposed on any holder of an elective office or the officer who makes the appointment in contravention of the procedure contemplated under Section 4 of the Act.

29. Section 7 states that no daily wage employee or a person appointed on a temporary basis continuing as such at the commencement of this Act shall claim for regularisation of service and his services are liable to be terminated at any time without issuing any notice and without assigning any reasons. (This section became redundant after a scheme was formulated in G.O. Ms.No. 212 for regularisation of the services of the temporary employees which received the approval of the Supreme Court).

57. Under Section 5 of Amending Act new Section 7-A was introduced.

Section 7-A:

(1) Notwithstanding any Government order, judgment, decree or order of any Court. Tribunal or other authority, no person shall claim for regularisation of service under the first proviso to Section 7 as it was incorporated by the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation Act 3 of 1998 of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure (Amendment) Act. 1988 (sic. 1998)."
(2) No suit or other proceedings shall be maintained or continued in any Court. Tribunal or other authority against the Government or any person or other authority whatsoever for regularisation of services and all such pending proceedings shall abate forthwith:

100. Now, coming to Section 7-A that was introduced in Act 2 of 1994 under Section 5 of Amending Act 27 of 1998, the purport and intention in introducing this Section is to nullify the effect of the interpretation given by this Court on G.O.Ms. No. 212. It is seen from Clause (1), the rights that have flown from orders of various Courts in favour of the temporary employees to get their services regularised as per interpretation placed by this Court as well as Apex Court on the cut-off date mentioned in G.O.Ms. No. 212 to get their services regularised, which was given statutory effect by amending Act 3 of 1998, were sought to be wiped out. Under subsection (2), all proceedings pending in any Court, Tribunal or authority seeking regularisation of services shall stand abated. Under Sub-section (3) any decree or order directing the Government to regularise the services of any of the temporary employees cannot be enforced. This Section is almost similar to Section 9 of the Principal Act that came into force on 25-11-1993 and under that Section, the claims of the temporary employees on the basis of any judgment, decree or order of any Court etc., were declared as abated. On an earlier occasion in Maize Beedar Agriculture Research Station, Hyderabad and Anr. v. Silar Bee (SMT), 1996(1) SLR 501 this Court held that no ordinary law made by any Legislature can curtail or affect the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the following words:

(xiv) To do all other things as are incidental to or conducive to the attainment of the above objects.

155. Under bye-law 10, the management of the Corporation vested in Board of Directors mentioned therein. Under bye-law 29, the Board is empowered to make recruitment and prescribe the conditions of service to various posts in the Corporation and to fix the scales of pay and allowances to be paid to the Officers or employees of the Corporation. Special bye laws governing the conditions of service have to be approved by the General Body and the same have to be registered by the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies. But unfortunately, the Corporation did not frame any bye-laws with regard to recruitment, qualifications, cadre strength, scales of pay for several years. In these circumstances, some employees of the Corporation filed writ petitions seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Corporation in not regularizing their services and in not paying the regular scales of pay attached to the posts in which they are working. The writ petitions viz., W.P. Nos. 17938, 17947 and 17961 of 1996, 32196 and 32589 of 1997 were allowed by this Court and a writ mandamus was issued to the respondents to create regular posts and absorb the petitioners therein in the posts held by them on regular basis as early as possible at any rate not exceeding four months from the date of receipt of the order and in the mean time they shall pay the minimum salary in the time scale of pay attached to those posts from the date of filing of the writ petitions. The Corporation filed Writ Appeal Nos. 334, 340 and 341 of 1997, 771 of 1999 unsuccessfully. Thereafter, they carried the matter to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1959 to 1961 of 1998 and 11905 of 1999 which were dismissed by the Supreme Court. The respondent Corporation having lost the Civil Appeals framed the bye-laws governing the service conditions of the employees and after obtaining the approval of the General Body, these special bye-laws were forwarded to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies for their registration and to the Government for approval as the Government happened to be the funding agency for the activities that are being carried on by the Corporation. Neither the Registrar registered the said bye-laws nor the Government has taken any decision either to approve or disapprove the bye-laws framed by the Corporation. With the result, as on to-day, the Corporation is functioning for the last quarter century without there being any bye-laws governing the service conditions of the employees and without fixation of cadre strength and the Corporation has resorted to making appointments on consolidated basis all these years. From the particulars furnished by the parties, it is seen that most of the employees have completed five years as on 25-11-1993 and their services have to be regularized as per the scheme formulated in G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated 22-04-1994. But the Corporation did not choose to do so. Even if the Amendment Act 27 of 1998, which is declared to be unconstitutional, is held to be good, most of the employees have to be regularized under G.O.Ms.No. 212, only in case of the employees who are appointed prior to 25-11-1993 and who did not complete five years of service as on that date, the Government may take shelter under the Amendment Act. But as per the interpretation placed on the scheme formulated by the Government, by this Court as well as the Apex Court, the employees who were appointed prior to 25-11-1993 are entitled to get their services regularized with all consequential benefits as and when they have completed five years of service vide District Collector/ Chairman's case (1 supra). Consequent upon the regularisation of their services they are entitled to get the service counted for seniority and other attendant benefits. But the monetary relief is restricted from the date of filing of the writ petitions. In other words, the arrears of salary will have to be paid with effect from the date of filing the writ petitions. The orders passed rejecting the proposals sent by the Corporation for regularisation of the services of their employees on the ground that there are no existing vacancies are quashed as the question of existence of vacancies would not arise when there was no cadre strength fixed and when there was no service rules framed coupled With the fact that the petitioners are working for more than a decade.