1. In this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to issuance of the impugned proceedings in Memo no.24132/CT.I/2022-1, dated 14.07.2022 and to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners and absorb their services in the equivalent posts of Typist existing and available in the United Nalgonda District in terms of letter Rc.No.E2/186/2003, dated 03.04.2017 with all consequential benefits and to grant such other relief and to pass to such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioners have been engaged by the respondents as Data Entry Operators in the year 1993. It is submitted that the petitioners were also granted minimum time scale of pay in the year 2011. It is submitted that vide Government Memo dated 31.12.2016, the respondent No.1 directed the respondent No.2 to furnish the information for regularization of the services of the petitioners and consequently the respondent No.2 has obtained information from the respondent No.3. Since the petitioners were not considered for such regularization, they approached this Court by filing W.P.No.14064 of 2021 and sought similar relief as was granted to the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6949 & 7008 of 2018, dated 05.03.2018 and vide orders dated 21.12.2021, the Writ Petition was disposed of directing the respondents therein to consider the cases of the petitioners for the entire exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. However, the petitioners’ representation was rejected vide orders dated 14.07.2022 and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the submissions made in the writ affidavit and submitted that the petitioners have been working since 1993 and there was a recommendation of the respondent No.3 vide Rc.No.E2/233/ 2002, dated 13.03.2002 acknowledging the above facts and also recommending regularization of the services of the petitioners on par with the Data Entry Operators working in the Department. It is submitted that in spite of said recommendation, the case of the petitioners was not considered. It is submitted that similarly placed persons who were working from 1989 to 1992 had approached this Court for regularization of their services and the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had initially granted relief to the petitioners therein against which the respondents approached this Court and the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the writ petition has observed that the petitioners therein have completed 20 years of service as Data Entry Operators in various Departments and in the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Nihal Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2013) 14 SCC 65, the respondents were directed to take policy decision for appointment of the petitioners therein either by absorbing them in equivalent post or by creating posts for Data Entry Operators on regular basis within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. It is submitted that thereafter, when the respondents did not comply with the direction of this Court, a Contempt Case was filed and it was thereafter that the respondents have decided to comply with the said directions and accordingly, the Contempt Case was closed. It is submitted that the only distinguishable fact between the case of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6949 & 7008 of 2018 and the petitioners herein is that the petitioners therein have worked as Data Entry Operators on consolidated pay from the year 1989 to 1992, whereas the petitioners herein are working from 1993 onwards. It is submitted that though the bench has observed that the said case cannot be treated as a precedent for all other cases, the petitioners herein have also worked for more than 20 years now and therefore, the respondents should be directed to take a policy decision for regularization of the services of the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 26.02.2016, issued by the Government of Telangana, wherein a policy decision was taken to absorb/regularize the services of persons appointed on contract basis against the sanctioned posts in the Government, subject to the conditions mentioned therein and one of the conditions was that the eligible persons should be working as on 02.06.2014 i.e., immediately before the formation of Telangana State and continuing till the date of proposed regularization in the letter dated 26.02.2016. He submits that the petitioners satisfy the above conditions and therefore, seeks a direction to the respondents to consider their case for regularization in terms of the said G.O.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II, however, relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the case of the petitioners is not similar to the case of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6949 & 7008 of 2018 and in view of the distinguishable factors, the judgment cannot be applied to the present case. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. Tamil Nadu Makkal Nala Paniyalargal and Others 2023 SCC Online SC 393, for the proposition that the High Court cannot direct regularization of the services of the persons when they were appointed on temporary basis. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan and Another (2011) 7 SCC 639, and Para 64 therefrom: for the submissions that the Court should not place reliance upon a judgment without discussing how the factual situation fits in with a fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed, as it has to be ascertained by analyzing all the material facts and the issues involved in the case and argued on both sides. It is submitted that disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance upon a decision is not proper.
6. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that since the petitioners have not been appointed against any regular vacancies, their cases cannot be considered for regularization. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vibhuti Shankar Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others 2023 SCC Online SC 114. Further, in support of his argument that part-time/temporary employees cannot claim regularization as a matter of right, dehors the regularization policy, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Ilmo Devi and Another Civil Appeal Nos.5689-5690 of 2021. Thus, he submitted that the petitioners are not entitled for regularization of their services.
7. Learned Government Pleader further pointed out that the petitioners were only appointed on temporary basis in the year 2006 and not in the year 1993, as claimed by the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners cannot be placed on par with the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6949 & 7008 of 2018.
8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that in this writ petition, the questions to be decided are:
(i) whether the petitioners herein are similarly placed as the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6949 & 7008 of 2018 and even if they are similarly placed, whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6949 & 7008 of 2018 can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioners herein, particularly when the Division Bench has held that the said decision is not to be considered as a precedent in any other case ?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are also entitled for regularization of their services pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 26.02.2016 ? and
(iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief of regularizations ?
9. Since the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.6949 & 7008 of 2018, dated 05.03.2018, has held that the decision therein cannot be treated as a precedent in any other case, this Court is also of the opinion that the same cannot be cited by the petitioners herein seeking similar relief, though in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.14064 of 2021, this Court had directed the respondents to grant similar relief as was granted to the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6949 & 7008 of 2018, dated 05.03.2018. Therefore, the first issue is decided against the petitioners.
10. As regards the second issue, this Court finds that the petitioners have been working with the respondents from the year 1993 as certified by the respondents officers in the recommendations for regularization of the services of the petitioners and the respective documents are filed along with the writ petition. Further, the petitioners are seeking regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 26.02.2016. However, on going through the said G.O., it is noticed from the conditions mentioned therein, that the employees should be working against the sanctioned posts and that they should be working on contract basis and that the said conditions are not satisfied in this case. As submitted and relied upon by the learned government pleader on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited by learned government pleader that regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right dehors the regularization policy, and since the petitioners do not fit into regularization policy of the Government, their requests cannot be considered. However, since the petitioners have been working for nearly three decades without any break and though their services are mentioned as temporary basis and not as contract basis, in view of their long service and because they are being paid a consolidated amount of pay and not the regular pay scale, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization as and when the next sanctioned vacancy arises in terms of G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 26.02.2016 by considering the service of the petitioners as on contract basis.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
