E.VENKATESWARLU Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Jurispath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

(3.) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as a Waterman-cum-Gardener on a consolidated pay of Rs.75.00 in respondent No.3 college on 27/1/1986, under Rule 10 (a) (1) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Service Rules, and has been in continuous service since then. The petitioner claimed entitlement to regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212 dtd. 22/4/1994, which was introduced to regularize the services of employees who worked continuously for a minimum period of 5 years before 25/11/1993. Despite filing O.A.No.6920 of 1996 and O.A.No.350 of 2000 for regularization of the petitioner's service and the respondents having been directed by the Administrative Tribunal and the High Court to consider regularization, the respondents rejected the petitioner's claim vide proceedings dtd. 8/6/2022, stating that the petitioner's appointment was "Part-Time," even though the petitioner worked full-time and performed additional duties, including sweeping the college premises. It is further the case of the petitioner that similarly situated employees, namely Mr. N. Bikshapathy and Md. Fareed, had their services regularized through similar legal proceedings, including O.A.No.6988 of 1996, W.P.No.16029 of 2000, W.P.(TR)No.5110 of 2017, and W.P.No.16414 of 2019, which were decided in favor of the applicants, confirming their entitlement to regularization. The petitioner submitted a representation on 17/3/2022, requesting regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212, but the same was not considered. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization, the petitioner had filed the present Writ Petition.