Syed Meera and Others vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others

D. Reddeppa Reddy, J.—This writ petition has been filed by three persons working as Assistant Stewards in three different hostels attached to Agricultural College, Bapatla, which is affiliated to Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad. The first and second petitioners were appointed by the Principal, the third respondent here in, by proceedings dated 18th June, 1966 as Assistant Stewards in the Agricultural College Hostel, Bapatla on temporary basis in the scale of pay of Rs. 80-4-100-5-150 plus usual allowances. The third petitioner was appointed by proceedings dated 30th June, 1981. His appointment was regularised by proceedings No.A.1/5305/82, dated 11th August, 1982 and he was placed on probation for a period of two years within a continuous period of three yeah with effect from 1st July, 1981. The scales of the first and second petitioners were revised in the year 1978 and accordingly by proceedings No.A.I/ 6743/80, dated 4th November, 1980 the increments due upto the end of June were released to them. They were also given the benefit of enhanced D.A., by proceedings dated 14th June, 1983 with retrospective effect from 1st March, 1982 The second respondent herein, namely, the Registrar, Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad, by proceedings No. 1001/Acad-2/72, dated 28th June, 1972 (at some places in the affidavit and material papers filed by the petitioner, the date is mentioned as 28-6-1982) decided that each hostel should be given a care-taker post in the cadre of U.D. Clerk with a peon. Based on the said proceedings, the third respondent herein addressed letter No.A.14256/86, dated 2nd September, 1986 to the second respondent, recommending the cases of the petitioners for absorption in the newly created posts of two U.D. Clerks, and one clerk-cum-typist. Also, the second respondent has sent proposals to the first respondent through letter No. 9718/Acad-2/83, dated 30th March, 1984 for creation and sanction of posts for all the hostels under the control of the University to maintain uniform staffing pattern. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that despite the recommendation of the third respondent they have not been absorbed so far as regular employees of the University. Hence, they have filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to absorb them as regular employees of the University and the college and give them all consequential benefits of pay, seniority etc.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent on behalf of respondents 2 to 5. The main plea in the said counter affidavit is that the appointment of the petitioners was irregular as their appointment was not against sanctioned posts. Further, they were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and they were overaged. Also, it is pleaded in the said counter affidavit that the second and third respondents are helpless as the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the first respondent herein has not so far approved the proposals of the second respondent for the creation and sanction of one post of care-taker for each hostel. The same plea is repeated in the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Secretary to Government, Food and Agricultural Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, on behalf of the first respondent herein.

Sri S. Satyanarayana Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners possessed the requisite qualifications prescribed for the post of Assistant Stewards and as such it is not permissible for the respondents to plead at this belated stage that their appointments were irregular. I find considerable force in this argument. As already noted above, the first and second petitioners were appointed by proceedings dated 8th June, 1966. It is not in dispute that they were paid annual increments and also enhanced rates of D. A., applicable to regular employees. As far as the third petitioner is concerned, he was also put on probation for a period of two years by proceedings No.A.I / 5305/82 dated 11th August, 1982. It is admitted by the respondents that in the case of hostels attached to Agricultural Colleges at Tirupati and Rajendra Nagar, Assistant Stewards/Stewards/care-takers have been appointed on regular basis. No reasons have been given by the respondents for not creating and sanctioning such posts in the case of hostels attached to Agricultural College at Bapatla. It is imperative that the respondents should follow uniform policy for all the hostels attached to Agricultural Colleges in the State. Article 14 of the Constitution obligates them to do so. The inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering petitioners'' case for regularisation for so long a period cannot but be treated as arbitrary and unreasonable.

It is not in dispute that the petitioners are continuously working. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that L.D. Clerks working in Agricultural College have been posted as L.D. Clerks against the post of caretaker in the hostels attached to Agricultural College, Bapatla, vide memo No. 1292/Ser.3/73-4, dated 14th December, 1973of the third respondent. Thus, it is obvious that the posts of care-takers are in existence in the hostels attached to Agricultural College at Bapatla since 1973. In State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others etc. etc., while reviewing the entire case law on the question of regularisation of services of temporary/casual employees, the Supreme Court though deprecated the practice of giving blanket directions by the High Courts to absorb all categories of temporary/casual employees, affirmed the principle that temporary /casual employees continuing over a number of years have a right to claim regularisation, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J., speaking for the Bench comprising three learned Judges observed as follows:-

"Ordinarily speaking, the creation and abolition of a post is the prerogative of the Executive. It is the Executive again that lays down the conditions of service subject, of course, to a law made by the appropriate legislature. This power to prescribe the conditions of service can be exercised either by making Rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or (in the absence of such Rules) by issuing Rules/ instructions in exercise of its executive power. The Court comes into the picture only to ensure observance of fundamental rights, statutory provisions, Rules and other instructions, if any, governing the conditions of service. The main concern of the court in such matters is to ensure the Rule of law and to see that the executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16. It also means that the state should not exploit its employees nor should it seek to take advantage of the helplessness and misery of either the unemployed persons or the employees, as the case may be. As is often said, the State must be a model employer. It is for this reason, it is held that equal pay must be given for equal work, which is indeed one of the directive principles of the Constitution. It is for this very reason it is held that a person should not be kept in a temporary or ad hoc status for long. Where a temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued for long the court presumes that there is need and warrant for a regular post and accordingly directs regularisation......." (para 10)

It is significant to note that their Lordships have affirmed the principles laid down in The Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate Daily Wages Employees Association and others, etc. Vs. State of Karnataka and others etc., and Jacob M. Puthuparambil and others Vs. Kerala Water Authority and others, . In (2) supra, the following directions were given:

"From amongst the casual and daily rated employees who have completed ten years of service by December 31, 1989, 18,600 shall immediately be regularised with effect from January 1,1990 on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability.

There shall be no examination but physical infirmity shall mainly be the test of suitability....."

In (3) supra, it has been held that,

".....it follows that employees who are serving on the establishment for long spells and have the requisite qualifications for the job, should not be thrown out but their services should be regularised as far as possible. Since workers belonging to this batch have worked on their posts for reasonably long spells they are entitled to regularisation in service." (at P.2239)

In the instant case, the first and second petitioners are in service since 1966 and the third petitioner since 1981. They possess the requisite qualifications. Also, their regularisation has been recommended long time back. In the circumstances, the respondents have an obligation to regularise their services.

For the aforesaid reasons, the first respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the proposal of the second respondent in letter No. 9718 / Acad-11/83, dated 30th March, 1984 and communicate its decision to the second and third respondents within three months from the date of receipt of this order. Within one month from the date of receipt of the said communication, the second and third respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation, relaxing their age limit and issue appropriate orders. It is needless to mention that the second and third respondents will also consider the question of giving consequential benefits of pay and promotion to the petitioners in accordance with the rules and regulations.

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. There will be no orders as to costs.