IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 32173 of 1998 Between: K.Sudhakar Reddy, T.T.Devasthanams, Vaikuntam Queue Complex, Tirumala, Tirupati. ..... PETITIONER AND The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, rep.by it's Executive Officer, Tirupathi. .....RESPONDENT 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 in the nature of a mandamus declaring the action of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam in it's proceedings ROC No.B5/30179/95 dated 29.7.97, rejecting the request of the petitioner, as illegal, discriminatory and arbitrary and consequently direct the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam to regularise the services of the petitioner as a Junior Assistant with effect from 19.4.1988 as was done in cases of similarly situated employees. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.V.SANJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent : SRI A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 32173 of 1998 ORDER : The petitioner, who is presently working as a Junior Assistant in Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, has filed this writ petition questioning the proceedings dated 29th July 1997, issued in Proceedings ROC.No.B5/30179/ 95, by which, his claim to treat his service from 19.04.1988 to 20.06.1992 as service in the cadre of Junior Assistant, is rejected. 2. Heard Sri P.V.Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for respondent-Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam. 3. Though the petitioner has given the particulars of the periods of his service in various posts, it is not necessary to mention all those periods in detail for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition. The petitioner has initially entered into service of the respondent-Devasthanam on 05.07.1982 as an Offset Assistant. it is the case of the petitioner that though he was recruited as an Offset Assistant, but he was being posted in the office of the Press Manager and is working as a Junior Assistant. Ultimately, pursuant to the Government Orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.296, dated 19.04.1988, his services as Offset Assistant were regularized with effect from 30.10.1990. Thereafter, pursuant to the Notification issued for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant, petitioner has also applied to the post of Junior Assistant as an in-service candidate, and he was selected. Consequently, he is appointed as such with effect from 20th June 1992. 4. Claiming that though he was employed as Offset Assistant, but was mostly discharging the functions of Junior Assistant for the period from 19.04.1988 to 20.06.1992, he made representations to treat the said service as a Junior Assistant, but however, when his claim was not being considered, he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.15493 of 1996. While referring to the instances where cases similar to that of the petitioner were considered, this Court, by order dated 22nd April 1997, in W.P.No.15493 of 1996, has granted directions to consider the claim of the petitioner to treat the period of his services from 19.04.1988 to 20.06.1992 as Junior Assistant. The operative portion of the said order is as follows :- “Having regard to the circumstances that since in similar cases, the respondent has considered the representations of others, for which particulars were furnished in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, I am of the view that there shall be a direction to the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. I may also observe that in case the representation is favourably considered, the petitioner is prepared to refund the excess salary drawn as Offset Assistant as admitted by him in para 6 of the affidavit.” 5. In compliance of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.15493 of 1996, the impugned order is passed, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 6. In this writ petition, it is contended by Sri P.V.Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner that though the petitioner has given the instances of several cases of similar nature where the persons regularized in different posts were being regularized in the posts in which they were working, but however, inspite of giving such examples, the impugned order is passed without even referring to such similar cases. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, specific references are made to the cases of one Mr.V.Sreenivasa Sharma, who was appointed as N.M.R. Helper in S.V.Canteen Complex, Tirumala, was deputed to the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forests in clerical capacity and was absorbed upon his request as an Assistant in the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forests though he was originally regularized in his original post. Reference was also made to the case of one K.Rajanna, who was appointed as Graining Machineman on N.M.R. basis in TTD press and deputed to Accounts Section in a clerical capacity, was also given benefit of his past service and absorbed as an Assistant in the Accounts Section inspite of being regularized as Graining Machineman. Yet another instance is referred to in the case of one M.Rajendra Kumar, who was appointed as a casual labourer in Electrical Department, Tirumala, but actually worked as a Typist. Though in the year 1988 his services were regularized in the post of Helper in Electrical Department, but on his representation, he was absorbed as a L.D.Typist. 7. The petitioner has also filed the orders relating to those persons where similar requests were considered and orders were passed. Though detailed allegations are made in the affidavit, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is merely stated that the petitioner has not filed any supporting material to substantiate his claim. 8. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of such service which he has rendered by discharging the duties akin to that of Junior Assistant for the period from 19.04.1988 to 20.06.1992, is a matter which is required to be considered by the respondents. But however, the fact remains that while making detailed allegations and giving several instances where the similar claims were considered by the respondents, the petitioner also filed supporting material to show that similar such cases were considered and orders were issued. But inspite of the same, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, except denial in paragraph 7, there is no other reason stated for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 9. In that view of the matter, without going into merits of the case, I deem it is a fit case to direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner afresh. 10. Accordingly, the order under challenge i.e. Proceedings in ROC.No.B5/30179/95, dated 29.07.1997 is set aside and there shall be a direction to the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner to treat his services for the period from 19.04.1988 to 20.06.1992, as a Junior Assistant, by considering his claim on par with the persons whose cases are referred to in the affidavit. Upon considering such cases, appropriate orders shall be passed with regard to the claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today. 11. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th April 2008 ajr To: 1. The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupathi.