COMMISSIONER Vs. J RAMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam is the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order dated 09.01.2004 in O.A.No.3860 of 2003 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, the instant writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Tribunal.

(2.) THE respondents 1 to 3 were engaged as Badili workers during the period from 1982 to 1995. THEir engagement with occasional breaks depended on regular employee going on leave or falling ill. After the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994, formulating the scheme for regularization and absorption of daily wage employees/NMR or consolidate employees, their services were terminated. THE respondents 2 and 3 filed O.A.Nos.6500 and 2391 of 2000 respectively. THEse were disposed of by the Tribunal on 03.11.2000 and 13.09.2000 respectively directing re-instatement of the respondents who rendered long service. THE Commissioner then addressed the Government for appropriate orders. In response thereto, the Government issued orders vide Memo No.9143/N2/1998-06/MA, dated 10.04.2002, and Memo No.5302/N2/2000-12/MA, dated 16.03.2002, directing the Commissioner to engage the respondents 2 and 3 respectively, as Badili workers. In obedience thereto, by proceedings in Rc.No.3656/2001/F2, dated 30.07.2002, the Commissioner ordered the re-induction of the respondents 1 and 2 indicating that the same does not confer any right for continuance of service and their service is liable to be terminated whenever, their services are not needed. Similar order being Rc.No.2179/2000/F2, dated 26.06.2002 was issued in the case of the third respondent. Armed with these orders, the respondents 1 to 3 filed O.A.No.3860 of 2003 seeking a direction to the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (the Corporation) to regularize their services with effect from initial date of appointment with attendant benefits. By impugned order, the learned Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. in the following manner.

(3.) IN this writ petition, the Corporation contends that the regularization of the respondents is to be considered as per the guidelines contained in G.O.Ms.No.212; the said G.O. does not confer any right for continuance of service and therefore, the direction issued by the Tribunal would go contrary to the scheme of regularization in G.O.Ms.No.212. The counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 would, however, submits that the services of his clients were re-engaged pursuant to the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.6500 and 2391 of 2000 and therefore the matters stand concluded and that the petitioners cannot be denied regularization on the ground that they are Badili workers.