IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.21291 of 2006 Between: 1 K.Prasad Babu, s/o Sambasiva Rao, R/o H.No.3-12-5, Ramalayam Temple, Rajakpet, Nehru Road, Tenali-522 201, Guntur District. 2 K.Ratna Babu, s/o Dharma Rao, D.no.4-5-24/6, 1st line/1st cross road, Vidya Nagar, Guntur-522 007. 3 Shaik Ismail, s/o Shaik Moula Saheb, D.no.5-60-3-28, Cobaltpet 6th Line, Guntur. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Arvinda Pandalai, Chairman, Managing Director of State Trading Corporation of India, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. 2 Somesh Banik (Branch Manager) State Trading Corporation 5th Floor, Moghal Courts, basheerbagh, Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in not reinstating the petitioners in their posts is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against to the principles of natural justice and violation of orders dt.15-03-1993 and 24-03-2004 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.8682 of 1989 and W.P.No.4041 of 1995 and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioners in their posts alongwith back wages and other beneﬁts and to pass such other or further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.G.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents : MR.A.VEERASWAMY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.21291 of 2006 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus declaring the action on the part of the respondents in not reinstating the petitioners in their posts as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the Order dated 15-3-1993 passed in Writ Petition Nos.8682 of 1989 and 4041 of 1995; consequently, to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioners in their posts along with back wages and other benefits. This case has chequered history. It appears, petitioners were appointed in the year 1978 along with others in Grade I post of Watchman-cum-Peon and posted in the Branch Oﬃce of the State Trading Corporation, Hyderabad. While so, in the year 1981, on registration of a theft case against them, they were suspended from service. Ultimately, the said case ended in acquittal. Thereafter, they made a representation for reinstatement; pursuant to which, the Personnel Oﬃcer of the respondent-Corporation at New Delhi, directed the 2nd respondent through letter dated 19-12-1988 to issue appointment letters to the petitioners offering them the post of Watchman-cum-Peon on the condition that they must unconditionally withdraw the Writ Petition, if any, ﬁled by them in any Court in India and they will not claim compensation of any sort from 1981 onwards. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.2, without complying with the said direction for appointing them, appointed M/s. N.Prabhakar Rao, D.V.Ramana and Shiva Kumar, though there was no such direction in their favour. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners ﬁled a Writ Petition in W.P.No.8682 of 1989 seeking a direction for reinstatement and appointment in terms of the letter dated 19-12-1988 of the 1st respondent. By an Order dated 15-3-1993, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition directing the respondents to absorb the petitioners either in the existing or future vacancies, without reference to backlog or without ﬁlling up by transfer. Challenging the said Order, the respondent-Corporation ﬁled an appeal in W.A.No.494 of 1993, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 18-8-1993, modifying the Order passed in the said Writ Petition to the extent of directing the Corporation to consider the case of the petitioners herein for absorption either in the existing or future vacancies of Watchmen-cum-Peons Grade I in conformity with the observations made by the Supreme Court while disposing of the Special Leave Petition No.2519 of 1980. According to the petitioners, in spite of the said directions, on one pretext or other, the said Order was not complied with and on the other hand, respondents have appointed certain new persons in 1993 and 1994. Thereafter, petitioners ﬁled a Writ Petition being W.P.No.4041 of 1995 seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint or absorb them anywhere in India in the Office of the 1st respondent. The said Writ Petition was allowed on 24-3-2004 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for absorption/appointment in the 1st respondent-Corporation, as per rules and regulations either in the existing or future vacancies. As the said Order was not complied with, petitioners ﬁled a contempt case in C.C.No.342 of 2005, which was closed on 5-1-2006, in view of the letter dated 29-7-2005 of the 2nd respondent, whereunder it is stated that there are no existing vacancies and the request of the petitioners for absorption/appointment is not possible at present; however, the cases of the petitioners will be reconsidered as and when vacancies arise, in future. This Court gave liberty to move the Court, if the respondents fail to consider their cases as and when vacancies arise in future. Thereafter, the ﬁrst petitioner made a representation dated 15-4-2006 to the 1st respondent seeking reinstatement/absorption, but no reply was given to him so far. Hence, this Writ Petition. A detailed counter aﬃdavit has been ﬁled by the respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioners and admitting the various cases ﬁled by the petitioners. It is stated that the Corporation is overstaﬀed and encouraging its staﬀ for voluntary retirement right from 1991 onwards. There was no necessity or occasion to the Corporation to recruit any personnel particularly of the category of Grade I (Peon/Watchman). Further, no recruitment took place subsequent to the Orders of this Court dated 24-3-2004 in Writ Petition No.4041 of 1995 except on compassionate grounds to the spouses of deceased employees. The persons named by the petitioners were appointed against backlog vacancy reserved for SC category and on compassionate grounds, pursuant to a Memorandum of settlement entered into between the Corporation and the Employees’ Union under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and those vacancies cannot be made available for accommodating the petitioners. Further, though the petitioners sought for appointment anywhere in India, they cannot have a legitimate right for appointment in altogether a diﬀerent unit of operation. There is no violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or any other law as alleged by the petitioners. There are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Heard both sides. At the outset, it may be necessary to notice the orders passed by this Court in various Writ Petitions/Writ Appeal/Contempt Cases. In Writ Petition No.8682 of 1989, this Court, by an Order dated 15-3-1993 held as under: “In the additional counter aﬃdavit of the respondents, it is stated that the backlog of SC and ST candidates was cleared by ﬁlling up the vacancies in August,1989. As fairly stated by the learned standing counsel for the respondents, the petitioners should be absorbed in the vacancies of watchman- cum-peon Grade I, either in the vacancies existing or that may arise in future. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed, and the respondents are directed to absorb the petitioners either in the existing or future vacancies of Watchman-cum-Peon Grade I in the Corporation, without reference to backlog or without ﬁlling up by transfer expeditiously.” When the respondent-Corporation has carried the said Order in appeal, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.494 of 1993, by a Judgment dated 18-8-1993 modiﬁed the said order as under: “We, therefore, dispose of the writ appeal at the stage of admission by modifying the direction to the extent of directing the appellant herein to consider the case of the respondents for absorption either in the existing or future vacancies of watchmen-cum-peons Grade I in the Corporation in conformity with the observations made by the Supreme Court while disposing of the Special Leave Petition, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs.” When the said Orders were not complied with, a contempt case in C.C.No.15 of 1994 was ﬁled. This Court by an Order dated 17-3-1994 disposed of the said contempt case holding as under: “We are not inclined to admit the contempt case. There is no averment in the aﬃdavit ﬁled by the petitioners in support of the contempt case that Sri Ajit Kumar, Managing Director, had taken any action deliberately with a view to scuttling the directions issued by the Division Bench nor are we in a position to discern from the record placed before us that the respondent herein has deliberately disobeyed the directions given by this Court. Sri Anantha Babu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, says that although there are vacancies, since the organization is over burdened, they will not be ﬁlled up. Moreover, certain vacancies which are earmarked to be ﬁlled up by members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes cannot be made available for accommodating the petitioners. In this factual situation, we are of the view that the contempt case deserves to be dismissed and accordingly is dismissed.” In Writ Petition No.4041 of 1995, this Court by an Order dated 24-3-2004 held as under: “Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for absorption/appointment in the 1st respondent-Corporation, as per rules and regulations, either in existing or in future vacancies. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.” When the said Order was not complied with, Contempt Case No.342 of 2005 was ﬁled and it was disposed of holding as under: “The above order clearly indicates that the second respondent is prepared to consider the cases of the petitioners as and when there are vacancies. In the light of the above submissions made by the respondents, the contempt case is closed. The petitioners are at liberty to move the Court, if the respondents fail to consider their cases as and when vacancies arise in future.” From a perusal of the said orders, it is very clear that this Court, time and again, directed the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners, either in the existing or future vacancies. In the counter ﬁled by the respondents, it has been categorically asserted that after 2004, no recruitment had taken place to the category of Watchman-cum- Peon Grade I in the respondent-organization. The recruitment made was only against backlog vacancies belonging to Scheduled Caste category or on compassionate grounds, but no recruitment had taken place for other categories. Petitioners do not belong to Scheduled Caste nor they are claiming appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, I am of the opinion that in the light of the earlier orders passed by this Court, no further orders are necessary in this Writ Petition. However, the respondents are directed to implement the Orders dated 24-3-2004 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4041 of 1995. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 30-10-2008 prk