IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT HYDERABAD Dt:07-09-2010 PRESENT: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No.17048 OF 2000 Between: The Postmaster General, O/o.Postmaster General, Visakhapatnam and another …. Petitioners AND Pampana Appalaraju S/o. Late Gangaraju and others …. Respondents HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No.17048 OF 2000 ORDER: (Per the Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 25-11-1999 in O.A No.398 of 1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. 2. The respondents herein are the applicants in the O.A. They filed the O.A. seeking a direction to the petitioners to treat them as Temporary Grade ‘D’ employees of the Department of Posts under Circular letters dated 12-04-1991, 30-11-1992 and 28-04-1997 issued by the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications of Government of India. The case of the applicants is that they have been working as part-time casual labourers in the Department for more than 15 years but, they have not been converted as full-time casual labourers and that the representations made by them seeking to put them in 8 hours duty per day, have not been considered. 3. The O.A. was opposed by the Department of Posts stating that full-time casual labourers are only eligible for group ‘D’ posts subject to the condition that they have put in 240 days of service and that as the applicants are only part-time casual labourers, they are not entitled to be treated on par with the full-time casual labourers. 4. The Tribunal, after going through the material brought on record and also placing reliance on Clause (iii) of letter dated 17-05-1989, allowed the O.A. and directed the respondents-petitioners to confer the temporary status to the applicants. 5. Heard the learned Standing counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. On a perusal of the material on record, the fact that remains undisputed is that the services of the applicants are being utilized as part-time casual labourers since 15 years by the date of filing the O.A. By placing reliance on Clause (iii) of the letter dated 17-5-1989, the applicants claim that they are entitled to be treated as temporary grade employees of the department of posts under Circular letters dated 12-4-1991, 10-11-1992 and 28-4-1997 issued by the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications of Government of India. 7. In the instant case, the entire issue revolves around Clause (iii) of letter dated 17-5-1989, on which basis, the Tribunal has also considered the claim of the applicants. Therefore, it is relevant to go through Clause (iii) of the letter dated 17-5-1989, which reads as under: “Casual labourers (full time or part-time) for purpose of computation of eligible service, half of the service rendered as part time casual labourer should be taken into account. That is, if a part-time casual labourer has served for 480 days in a period of 2 years he will be treated for purposes of recruitment, to have completed on year of service of full time labourer.” 8. The above letter makes it clear that in case of computation of eligible service pertaining to a part time casual labourer, half of the service rendered by such labourer shall be taken into consideration. For example, if a part time casual labourer has rendered a service of 480 days in a period of two years, he shall be treated for the purpose of recruitment, to have completed one year of service of full time casual labourer. 9. In this regard, there is also no dispute that the applicants have completed not less than 15 years of service in the Railway Mail Service Division at Visakhapatnam by the time of filing the O.A. 10. As per Clause (iii) of the letter dated 17-5-1989, a part time casual labourer is entitled to be treated as a full-time casual labourer by adopting the method of computing the service as mentioned therein. It is also pertinent to note that by letter dated 30-11-1992, it was communicated that the Supreme Court had held that after rendering three years of continuous service with temporary status, the casual labourers should be treated on par with temporary group D employees of the Department. It is also borne on record that certain measures have been taken to provide full time employment to part time casual labourers. 11. In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to in the letter dated 30-11-1992 as well as Clause (iii) of the letter dated 17-5-1989 and the correspondence made by the authorities, we feel that the right of conferment of temporary status on the applicants, cannot be denied, as rightly observed by the tribunal. 12. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Hence, this writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed confirming the order of the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J September 07, 2010. __________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J KTL