Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5525 of 2007
PETITIONER:
The Secretary to Govt. Agriculture & Cooperation Govt. of A.P. and Ors
RESPONDENT:
K. Kesavulu
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/11/2007
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & AFTAB ALAM
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
CIVIL APPEAL No. 5525 OF 2007
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.21225 of 2005)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing
the writ petition filed by the appellant. In the writ petition
correctness of order passed by the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (In short the ’Tribunal’)
was questioned.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Respondent was appointed as Watchman at the Seed
Stores, Pitchatoor, by proceedings dated 21.4.1980 on a
temporary basis. Initially he was getting Rs.290/- p.m.
Subsequently, the services of the respondent and eighteen
others were converted into regular last grade service by ROC
No.A3/3291/85 dated 1.3.1991. However, by subsequent
proceeding in G. O. Ms. No.98 dated 1.4.1999, the service of
the respondent was again regularized pursuant to the orders
of the Government in G.O.Ms No.212 dated 22.4.1994.
Consequently proceedings dated 8.4.1999 were issued
considering him as a regular employee w.e.f. 1.4.1999. As a
result, respondent was denied the benefit of regularisation into
last grade service w.e.f. 1.3.1991. The respondent filed O.A.
No.3051 of 2000 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal
seeking invalidation of the proceedings in G.O.Ms. No.98 dated
1.4.1999 and consequential proceedings dated 8.4.1999 and
for a declaration that he was entitled to be treated as a regular
employee in the last grade service w.e.f. 1.3.1993 with all
consequential benefits.
4. By Order dated 4.8.2004, the Tribunal held that the
service of the respondent was regularized pursuant to the
order in G.O. Ms. No.98 dated 1.4.1999 and basing on order in
G.O.Ms No.9 of 1981 proceedings dated 1.3.1991 were issued
and his service stood converted into a regular last grade
service and the subsequent scheme of regularization issued in
G.O. Ms. No.212 dated 22.4.1994 would not deprive the
respondent of the benefits of earlier regularization. The order
was challenged before the High Court which, as noted above,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
dismissed the writ petition.
5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that Notification dated 1.2.1991 inter alia
provided the following condition to be fulfilled:
"Government have examined the issue
carefully and decided that the services of the
full time contingent employees appointed
before 1.2.1980 be converted into last grade
service after completion of 5 years subject to
fulfilling the conditions laid down in Govt.
Memo 1st and 2nd."
6. Admittedly, the respondent was appointed in April, 1980
and, therefore, was not entitled to the benefit flowing from the
G.O.Ms. 124 dated 22.2.1991. It was further pointed out that
the order by which the regularization was directed on 1.3.1991
referred to a wrong G.O. i.e. G.O.Ms. No.9 (F&P (FW.PRC VI)
Dept. dated 8.1.1981. The same related to regularization and
conversion into regular posts. Noticing the illegality in the
order of regularization cancellation was directed by order
dated 23.9.1991 wherein the correct G.O.Ms. i.e. 124 dated
22.2.1991 was referred to and it was clearly stated that the
concerned workman-respondent had not fulfilled the
conditions laid down in G.O. Ms. 124 (F & A Agri.IV) dated
21.2.1991. The regularization in 1999 was done pursuant to
G.O.Ms. No.98 dated 1.4.1999 which inter alia provided as
follows:
"Government after careful consideration
hereby accord permission for regularization of
the services of the following daily wage
employees working in Chittoor District against
the existing vacancies as indicated against
their names from the date of issue of orders
i.e. with prospective effect as they have fulfilled
all the conditions stipulated in G.O. Ms. No.
212, Finance and Planning (F.W.P.C.III)
Department dated 22.4.1994."
7. This regularization was under another scheme. In any
event writ petition was filed in 2004. It is highlighted that the
1999 scheme stipulated a condition about the regular vacancy
and, therefore, regularization was done in 1999.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
submitted before the Tribunal that it was clearly highlighted
that G.O.Ms. No.212 dated 22.4.1994 provided that
regularization of services of those who were working for five
years prior to November, 1993.
9. The Tribunal held that the services of the respondent and
others were regularized under earlier orders, and, therefore,
G.O.Ms. No.98 dated 1.4.1999 cannot be applied to the case of
the respondent.
10. It is to be noted that the order dated 23.9.1991 was
passed because the respondent and several others did not
fulfil the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms. No.124 (F&A) Agrl.V)
dated 1.2.1991. The condition which is relevant has already
been extracted above. Undisputedly, the concerned G.O.
related to persons who had completed five years of service
before 1.2.1990. Undisputedly the respondent was appointed
on 21.4.1990 and, therefore, he did not fulfil the condition.
11. That being so, the question of his regularization did not
arise. After the order of regularization was passed the
discrepancy was noticed and was subsequently rectified. It is
not the case of the respondent that he was to be regularised in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
terms of G.O.Ms. No.124 dated 1.2.1991. The Tribunal and
the High Court clearly lost sight of this basic fact. That being
so, the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court are
indefensible and are set aside.
12. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.