IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 4996 of 2010 Between: Gadila Anjaiah …PETITIONER AND The Osmania University and others. ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 4996 of 2010 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the inaction of the respondents in implementing the order, No.313/4/2007-2008/Budget-III, dated 11.01.2008, in favour of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondents to award the time-scale applicable to the post of Driver with effect from 01.12.2007, as per above order, with all consequential and attendant benefits and back wages. 2. The averments of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Driver on 15.12.1992 on daily wage basis and since then he has been working in respondent No.3 institution. Apart from him, four other persons were also appointed, but all of them have left the University, except the petitioner. The petitioner has completed more than 18 years of service in respondent No.1 University. While things stood thus, the University Executive Council at its 98th meeting held on 07.01.2008, accorded sanction to award Minimum Basic Pay of the time scale applicable to respective categories and Dearness Allowance to those who have been working in respondent No.1 University before 25.11.1993 onwards. Respondent No.2 passed orders, dated 11.01.2008, directing that the Dean, Development & UGC Affairs, Osmania University, Hyderabad, to take necessary action to provide funds for this purpose. Thereafter, a list was prepared and names of 75 employees were recorded and attached to the orders for taking action. But, surprisingly, name of the petitioner was not included in the said list. The petitioner approached respondent No.2 and informed about non-inclusion of his name in the list. Respondent No.2 assured the petitioner that the same benefits would also be applicable to him on par with the listed daily wage employees as per the order, dated 11.01.2008. The listed daily wage employees as per the orders, dated 11.01.2008, were sanctioned the time scale, but, the petitioner was not granted the time scale on par with them. Respondent No.2 addressed letters, dated 18.03.2008, 16.07.2008 and 05.02.2010, to respondent No.3 to implement the said orders of respondent No.1 in favour of the petitioner also, but respondent No.3 has not implemented the said orders, dated 11.01.2008 in respect of the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner vide his letter, dated 21.11.1992, requested the University to appoint him as Driver at PGRRCDE, Osmania University by its Director on daily wage basis at the rate of Rs.30/- per day and has been continuing, as Driver till date on daily wage basis and his service is purely temporary. The Executive Council at its meeting held on 07.01.2008 has accorded sanction for awarding the Minimum Basic Pay of the Time Scale (RSP- 2005) applicable to respective categories and prevailing DA without ESI/GPF/EPF to the daily wage employees who have been working in the University before cut of date i.e., 25.11.1993, and accordingly orders bearing No.313/4/2007-08/Budget-III, dated 11.01.2008 was issued by the Registrar with effect from 01.12.2007. As per the orders, dated 11.01.2008, a list of 352 employee names were enclosed and the name of the petitioner is not included as his appointment orders and extension from time to time were issued by respondent No.3 and not by respondent No.1 University. The petitioner is not a daily wage employee in the University and petitioner’s extensions were not approved by the University and hence, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner was appointed by respondent No.3, the Joint Registrar has recommended that the petitioner was eligible for allotment of time scale and that the same was not allotted to the petitioner and hence, he prays to implement the order, dated 11.01.2008. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, contended that though the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Vice Chancellor, the same was not ratified by the Executive Council of the University and therefore, the question of putting the petitioner in the time scale attached to the post does not arise and hence, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver by virtue of proceedings, dated 27.03.1993, issued by the Director, Centre for Distance Education, Osmania University, Hyderabad, along with some other persons. The same was submitted for approval to Chairman and Vice Chancellor as a special case. The Chairman and Vice Chancellor of the Osmania University approved the same and the petitioner is continuing in the said post since 15.12.1992. Unless the action of the Vice Chancellor is approved by the Executive Council of the University, the petitioner is not entitled to award of time scale. 7. In view of the admission made by the respondents that the list was earlier approved by the Vice Chancellor and the case of the petitioner shall be placed before the Executive Council before the final decision is taken, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to place the case of the petitioner before the ensuing meeting of the Executive Council, which in turn has to take appropriate decision. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J JUNE 29, 2011 Note: Issue C.C.within a week. (B/o) YVL