IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.4419 of 2008 Between: 1 M. Chalapathay S/o. M. Naganna R/o. 29-335/5, SCA, Saraswathinagar, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 2 U. Ramanjaneyulu S/o. U. Neelappa R/o. 17-1170-D, Rajendranagar, Guntakal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Food Corporation of India, Rep. by its General Manager (South) Zonal Office, 3 Haddows Road, Chennai-600 008 2 Food Corporation of India, Regional Ofice, HAKA Bhavan, Hyderabad, Saifabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its General Manager (Region) 3 Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Office, Kurnool. 4 Depot-in-Charge, Food Corporation of India, Timmancherla, Kurnool. ....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 an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the proceedings No. 016/2008-E.II dt. 5-2-2008 issued by the General Manager(South) Communicated through Area Manager, FCI, District Oﬃce, Kurnool as illegal, and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for Respondents: SMT.CHINTALAPUDI LAKSHMI KUMARI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.4419 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No.016/2008-E.II, dated 5-2-2008 issued by the General Manager (South) – 1st respondent - as arbitrary and illegal. Petitioners joined the respondent-Food Corporation of India as daily rated workers in the year 1976. However, their services were terminated after completion of one year, without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. Thereafter, they raised an industrial dispute and pursuant to the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, they were reinstated into service in the year 1986. According to the petitioners, the Zonal Oﬃce vide letter dated 18-3-1992 communicated to the 2nd respondent, has taken a decision to regularize their services from the date of their initial appointment and put them at proper placement in the seniority list, but without any arrears. As the said decision was not implemented, they ﬁled a Writ Petition being W.P.No.11095 of 1993 and this Court by an Order dated 6-8- 1993 directed the 2nd respondent to follow the letter dated 18- 3-1992 and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three months. Thereafter, the petitioners were promoted as Assistants Grade III by an Oﬃce Order dated 23-2-2005; however, the 1st respondent vide Oﬃce Order dated 28- 12-2005 cancelled the promotions, on the premise that their services were regularized with eﬀect from 2-5-1986 only. Challenging the same, petitioners ﬁled a Writ Petition being W.P.No.416 of 2006, which was allowed by this Court; however, the respondents were permitted to issue a show cause notice and then decide the matter afresh. Thereafter, explanation was called for from the petitioners and by Order dated 18-2-2008 of the Area Manager, District Oﬃce, Kurnool, again cancelled the order of promotion of the petitioners to the post of Assistant Grade III (General). Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. Respondents 1 to 4 ﬁled a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioners. It is stated inter alia that the petitioners were engaged as daily rated workmen on 15-1- 1976 and 22-3-1976 respectively and they were disengaged later. Questioning the said disengagement, the petitioners raised industrial dispute. The Industrial Tribunal allowed the I.Ds. setting aside the termination orders and directing to reinstate the petitioners without back wages, but with continuity of service for the purpose of payment of terminal beneﬁts. Thereafter, the services of the petitioners were regularized with eﬀect from 2-5-1986 by Proceedings dated 25-1-1989. Later, on the representations made by the petitioners, they were promoted to the Category of Assistant Grade III, taking into account their original date of engagement as daily rated workers, by mistake. The same was rectiﬁed by Proceedings dated 28-12-2005. Questioning the same, the petitioners ﬁled a Writ Petition and in pursuance of the Orders of this Court, the present impugned Order was passed after issuing notice to the petitioners and considering the explanation submitted by them. Further, the petitioners are not entitled for promotion by overlooking hundreds of senior employees. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. Heard both sides and perused the impugned Order and other material made available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken the Court through various Proceedings issued by the respondents including the Awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal (Central) at Hyderabad. Admittedly, petitioners were initially engaged as daily rated workers in the respondent-Food Corporation of India, in the year 1976. When their services were terminated, they approached the Industrial Tribunal (Central) at Hyderabad and the Tribunal by Award dated 14-6- 1985 passed in I.D.No.86 of 1984 and the Award dated 22-6- 1985 passed in I.D.No.90 of 1984 directed the respondent- Management to reinstate the petitioners without back wages, but with continuity of service for payment of terminal benefits. Thereafter, the services of the petitioners’ were regularized with eﬀect from 2-5-1986. Subsequently, on the representations made by the petitioners, they were promoted to the post of Assistant Grade III (General) vide Oﬃce Order dated 23-2-2005. According to the respondents, the said promotion order was passed, by mistake, taking into consideration their original date of engagement as daily rated workers. But, the same was rectiﬁed by Proceedings dated 8-12-2005 and cancelled the promotion order. When the said Order was questioned in W.P.No.416 of 2006, this Court set aside the same; but gave liberty to the respondents to issue show cause notice and then decide the matter on merits. Thereafter, show cause notices were issued to the petitioners and on considering the explanation submitted by them, the impugned Orders were passed stating that the petitioners are entitled for reckoning their seniority from the date of reinstatement and not from the date of joining. Here, it is pertinent to mention that the Industrial Tribunal directed the Management to reinstate the petitioners without back wages, but with continuity of service only for the purpose of payment of terminal beneﬁts. Therefore, the respondents rightly reckoned the seniority of the petitioners from the date of reinstatement/regularization of their services i.e. 2-5-1986 and not from the date of their initial engagement as daily rated workers. The impugned Order categorically states that the petitioners’ cases were never considered for regularization with eﬀect from 1976. The reversion orders were passed since the petitioners were juniors to the 5th respondent and others and, therefore, they cannot be said to be illegal or without any reasons. As such, I do not ﬁnd any inﬁrmity in the impugned Orders. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 26-9-2008 prk