LAWS(APH)-1997-6-65

GEDDAMMA G Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On June 11, 1997
G.GEDDAMMA Appellant
V/S
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME (COURTS) DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this Writ Petition, numbering fifteen, seek a Writ of Mandamus for a declaration that they are entitled for regularisation of their services from the dates of their appointment in their respective posts and directing the respondents to pay them the salary attached to the respective regular posts etc.

(2.) In the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition it is stated that the petitioners have been continuously working without any break and that they have been discharging their duties like regular employees and yet from the date of their appointment they are being paid only a consolidated salary of Rs. 400/- per month. It is also stated that they approached the respective authorities to give them regular scales of pay or at least increase their consolidated salary, but to no effect. They also made representations to the 4th respondent i.e., the District & Sessions Judge, Guntur, to consider their cases for-regularisation of their services; that also had no effect.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Paira Singh and Dharwad P.W.D. Eemployees Assn. vs. State of Karnataka and submits that the petitioners who have been working continuously for long periods should be regularized and paid regular wages. He also relies on Article 43 of the Constitution of India. The learned Advocate General submits that in view of Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 ("the Act" for short) the petitioners do not have "a right to claim for regularisation of services on any ground whatsoever" and that their services "shall be liable to be terminated at any time without any notice and without assigning any reasons". He also relies on Section 9 of the Act. In reply, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relies on G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22-4-1994, the order of the Supreme Court in G.Mallaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and the decision of this Court in Govt. of A.P. and others vs. A. Narnyana Swamy and others.