IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL (SR) No.137785 of 2008 AND WRIT APPEAL No.1661 of 2008 Writ Appeal (SR) No.137785 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 17.06.2008 in Writ Petition No.24783 of 2004 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1. The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 2. The Chief General Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Hyderabad - 500 001. 3. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, represented by its Director General, New Delhi. … Appellants And 1. U.Narayana 2. Md. Abdullah 3. K. Sudershanam 4. M. Narasaiah 5. S. Hanumanth 6. T. Subba Rao 7. B. Rajaiah 8. I. Chalamaiah 9. M. Madhu 10. Sk. Khasim …Respondents Counsel for the appellants : Sri B. Devanand Counsel for the respondents : Sri D. Linga Rao Writ Appeal No.1661 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 04.09.2008 in Writ Petition No. 9529 of 2004 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, represented by its Director General, New Delhi. 2. The Chief General Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Hyderabad - 500 001. 3. The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Karimnagar, Karimnagar Dist. ...Appellants And 1. Mohd. Amzad Ali ...Respondent Counsel for the appellants : Sri B. Devanand Counsel for the respondent : Sri P. Naveen Rao The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, C.J.) Admit. 1. At the request of the learned Advocates, both the appeals are heard together. 2. Order passed in Writ Petition No. 9529 of 2004, against which Writ Appeal No.1661 of 2008 has been filed, is based on the order delivered in Writ Petition No.24783 of 2004. Order passed in Writ Petition No. 24783 of 2004 on 17.6.2008 has been challenged in Writ Appeal (SR) No.137785 of 2008 and, therefore, both the appeals are connected with each other. 3. In view of the above fact, for the purpose of deciding these appeals, we are looking at the facts of Writ Petition No.24783 of 2004. 4. The parties in the said appeals have been described as arrayed in Writ Petition No.24783 of 2004. 5. Writ Petition No.24783 of 2004 was filed by Casual Mazdoors of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited with a prayer that their services be regularized because the services of other employees, who were junior to them, had been regularized. In the circumstances, it was submitted before the learned single Judge that discriminatory treatment was given to the said petitioners and, therefore, their services should have also been regularized as per the scheme introduced by the respondent - employer. 6. After hearing the learned Advocates, the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the petition by giving a direction to the appellants to consider cases of the petitioners in terms of the Scheme dated 7th November, 1989 – “Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme”, for temporary status and regularization within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 7. It is pertinent to note that the case of the respondents before the learned Single Judge was that the petitioners had fabricated record pertaining to their engagement in the Railway Electrification Project for the period commencing from March, 1985 to March, 1987 so as to get entry in the department. Though there are no findings on the said submission, but there appears to be some doubt with regard to use of fabricated/forged documents by the petitioners. 8. The submission made on behalf of the appellants is that as the petitioners had relied upon false – fabricated record at an earlier point of time and as they had worked as casual labourers in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court, even the petitioners had no right to be re-considered because re-consideration of their cases would not make any difference. 9. After hearing the learned Advocates, the learned Single Judge has observed in paragraph 10 of the order that - “The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners do not fall within the parameters of the Scheme i.e., Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, dated 7.11.1989 and thereafter, no scheme so far has been formulated for temporary status and regularization of the petitioners, cannot be accepted.” 10. By making the above observation, the learned Single Judge has rejected the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners did not fall within the parameters of the Scheme framed on 7th November, 1989. After having rejected the afore-stated submission made on behalf of the respondents, the learned Single Judge has finally given a direction with regard to considering cases of the petitioners for regularization. 11. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge ought to have kept it open to the respondents to consider cases of the petitioners as per the Scheme framed by the respondents without making any observation with regard to eligibility or otherwise of the petitioners. 12. In the circumstances, we are of the view that without considering any observation made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, the respondents shall consider cases of the petitioners afresh so that all relevant factors including all questions of fact can be re- considered by the respondents before taking final decision with regard to regularization of the petitioners. 13. Subject to the afore-stated clarification, Writ Appeal (SR) No.137785 of 2008 is disposed of with no order as to costs. 14. So far as Writ Appeal No.1661 of 2008 is concerned, the order against which the said appeal is directed is based on the order delivered in Writ Petition No. 24783 of 2004. As the order delivered in Writ Petition No.24783 of 2004 has been modified, the order delivered in Writ Petition No.9529 of 2004 is also modified to the effect that without considering the observations made in Writ Petition No.24783 of 2004, cases of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.9529 of 2004 shall be considered by the respondent - employer. 15. Thus, the order delivered in Writ Petition No.24783 of 2004 stands modified as directed hereinabove. 16. Needless to say that it will be open to the petitioners to take appropriate legal course if they are aggrieved by the decision, which might be taken by the appellant - employer with regard to regularization of their services. 17. Both the appeals are disposed of in view of the afore-stated modifications. There shall be no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 11th December, 2008. R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. …..REGISTRAR To 1. The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 2. The Chief General Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Hyderabad - 500 001. 3. The Director General, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, New Delhi. GRR/ARS