M.GURAYYA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-temple.

(2.) The petitioner is working as a NMR Fitter in the 3rd respondent-temple. His complaint is that the 3rd respondent did not consider his case for regularization, even though he has been working in this temple, since the year 1996 on daily wages. It appears that his services were continued on consolidated pay. While referring to the celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Kerala v. Uma Devi , 2006 4 SCC 1 and other judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled for regularization, since the matter squarely falls within the purview of the above ruling.

(3.) However, Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent disputes this situation and states that if the judgment in Uma Devi is followed, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered.