BANDARU RAMBABU REDDY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in regularising the services of the petitioner on par with similarly situated other employees as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides also violative of the law as set out and settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide their (i) Judgment dtd. 10/4/2006, as made in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 and (ii) Judgment dtd. 3/8/2010 as made in State of Karnataka and others Vs. M.L.Kesari and others and also violative of principles of natural justice, equity, conscience and consequently to direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner with effect from 1/8/1993 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed by the respondents as Record/Library Assistant on 1/8/1993 in an aided vacancy and since then he has been discharging his duties continuously without any break to the utmost satisfaction of the Organisation. It is submitted that at the time of his appointment he was given appointment letter but he lost the same and though he asked for a copy of the same they have never given it to him but the 3rd respondent has given experience certificate showing the joining particulars as and when he asked. Thereafter, he was brought under the provident fund scheme by the respondents since 1995-96, which can be seen in annual reports and circular dtd. 4/2/2000. His P.F. account number is AP/7862/30, A.V. College and since then employee and employer's share have been deposited into his said PF account without any interruption. It is further submitted that he has been working with consolidated monthly salary of Rs.500.00 and his gross salary as on 31/1/2015 is Rs.9,950.00 and net salary is Rs.8,622.00 per month. It is also submitted that he is the only bread winner in the family. Since his joining in service, at least 30 employees who were under aid have gone retired and he was appointed in one of such aided vacancy only and therefore, he has rightly acquired legitimate expectation to have his services regularised with effect from his date of joining i.e. 1/8/1993. Moreover, his appointment as well as his continuation in the 3rd respondent college has been within the knowledge of the 1st and 2nd respondents. It is also submitted that there are 50 aided non-teaching posts in the 3rd respondent college and hence he is under the impression that he would be getting the aided salary and associated benefits but it is not done till now. Further, he categorically submitted that for claiming regularisation under G.O. Ms.No.212, dtd. 22/4/1994 his case does not fulfil the requisite condition of having put in five years of service as on the cut off date i.e. 25/11/1993 as contemplated under G.O. Ms. No.212 but his case squarely falls under the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Karnataka and others Vs. M.L.Kesari and others (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 247. Questioning inaction on the part of the respondents in regularising his services by the respondents he filed the present writ petition. To substantiate his case, he placed reliance in the case of one and two supra.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 and 3 have filed their separate counters.