IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15832 of 1999 Between: Smt. Venkateshwar, W/o. Dharmaiah, R/o. Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Transco, Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Divisional Engineer, Operations, Elecy., Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District. 3 The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Elecy., Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more fully in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the petitioner's Services as Sweeper as illegal, improper and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as per G.O. (P)No.112, dt. 23.7.1997. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. K. Chaitanya Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. P.R. Balarami Reddy (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following Order: The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing her services as sweeper as arbitrary and illegal. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner joined as a part-time sweeper on 01-04-1980 in the office of the Divisional Engineer, Operations, Electricity, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District on a consolidated pay and since then she is continuing as such. It is stated that, earlier, when she was sought to be retrenched by the respondents, by invoking the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, she approached this court by way of W.P.No.13376 of 1993 and in view of the interim orders passed therein, she is being continued as such, without extending the benefit of regularization. As such, she seeks direction to the respondents to regularize her services as sweeper. 3. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the petitioner was appointed as a part-time contingent employee on 01-04-1980 and she is being continued as such on a consolidated pay of Rs.500/- per month. It is stated that when the services of the petitioner were retrenched by paying compensation of Rs.2,541-60, as per the provision under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, she approached this court and in view of the interim orders passed by this court, she is being continued in service. In the counter affidavit, it is categorically stated that there is no vacant post, so as to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. 4. Though the petitioner has stated that she has been serving as sweeper from the year 1980, but it is to be noted that she was not appointed in a regular vacancy by following due procedure under law and there was no notification inviting applications to fill up the posts. The law is well settled that regularization of service cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In any event, in view of the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit that there are no vacant posts so as to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization, no direction as sought for can be given. However, as the respondents have not disputed that the petitioner is being continued in service as on today, this order will not preclude them to continue the petitioner in service on the same terms and conditions and also to regularize her services, when any vacancies arise, if she is otherwise eligible. 5. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. March 16, 2009 MRR