AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent vide Memo No.CMD/DIR/Tech/GM(HR)/DGM-I/PO-II/D.No.328/2023, dated 12.07.2023, in refusing to modify the date of regularization of the petitioner as 19.06.2008 instead of 03.10.2008.
Heard Smt.Y.Mahalakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Energy for respondent No.1, and Sri Abdul Mathews, learned counsel representing Sri V.V.Satish, learned Standing Counsel for APCPDCL, for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Petitioner joined as Sub-Engineer on yearly contract basis in the Operations Section, Komarada Mandal, Vizianagaram District, in APEPDCL on 19.06.2006. Thereafter, petitioner got transferred from APEPDCL to APSPDCL on mutual basis with one M.Seshagiri, Sub-Engineer, Operations, Tsundur, vide Memo dated 10.01.2008. Accordingly, petitioner joined as Sub-Engineer on yearly contract basis in Operations Section, Tsundur, on 21.02.2008. As per the terms of appointment, on completion of two years of service under yearly contract basis, petitioner’s services are to be regularized.
The employees working under yearly contract basis in APSPDCL made a representation to the Chairman and Managing Director for regularizing their services, including those who had not completed two years of service. Pursuant to same, vide S.O.O.Ms.No.141, dated 03.10.2008, services of those employees were regularized. Accordingly, petitioner’s services were also regularized on the said date, though the petitioner had completed his two years of service by 19.06.2008 itself. Thus, petitioner made a representation to the respondents seeking to regularize his service with effect from 19.06.2008 instead of 03.10.2008.
As there was no response from the authorities, he filed Writ Petition No.10526 of 2023 and this Court, vide order dated 25.04.2023, directed the authorities to consider and dispose of the representation dated 28.08.2022 and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to which, the respondents have passed the order impugned in the present Writ Petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the respondents have stated that a common date of regularization was assigned to all the persons, including the petitioner, by regularizing their services with effect from 03.10.2008, no reasons have been assigned in the proceedings dated 12.07.2023 for denying the petitioner regularization with effect from 19.06.2008, on which date he had completed two years of service on contract basis.
It is further submitted that counter affidavit filed by the respondents only speaks about the persons who had not completed two years of service were regularized by assigning the notional date of regularization as 03.10.2008. In the instant case, the petitioner had already completed two years of service on contract basis by 19.06.2008, as such, his case has to be considered on completion of two years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the proceedings dated 01.01.2009, wherein it reveals that, in respect of Sub-Engineers, regularization was taken place on the date of completion of two years service on contract period. However, the respondents have not assigned any reason for not considering the case of the petitioner with effect from 19.06.2008, on which date he completed two years of service on contract basis and the counter affidavit is also silent on this aspect as to what was the reason for not considering the petitioner’s case from the said date.
In view of the same, the order impugned in the Writ Petition i.e., Memo No.CMD/DIR/Tech/GM(HR)/DGM-I/PO-II/D.No.328/2023, dated 12.07.2023, is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration and to pass reasoned order by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 28.08.2022, duly providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.