IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 24783 of 2004 Between: 1 U.Narayana, s/o U.Rajamallu, o/o General Manager (T.D.) Karimnagar. 2 Md.Abdullah, s/o Raj Mahammed, o/o Sub Divisional Engineer, Phones, Peddapally, Karimnagar District. 3 K.Sudershanam, s/o Kamalakar, o/o Sub Divisional Officer, Telecommunications, Peddapally, Karimnagar District. 4 M.Narasaiah, s/o Narsaiah, o/o Sub Divisional Officer, Telecommunications, Peddapally, Karimnagar District. 5 S.Hanmanth, s/o Bhimaiah, o/o Sub Divisional Officer, Telecommunications, Jagityal, Karimnagar District. 6 T.Subba Rao, s/o T.Venkaiah, o/o Sub Divisional Officer, Telecommunications, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District. 7 B.Rajaiah, s/o Dastagiri, o/o Sub Div.officer, Telecommunications, Peddapally, Karimnagar District. 8 I.Chalamaiah, s/o Ankaiah, o/o Sub Div.Officer, N.T.P.C.Jyothinagar, Karimnagar. 9 M.Madhu, s/o Ratnaiah, o/o Sub Div.Officer, N.T.P.C.Jyothinagar, Karimnagar. 10 Shaik Kasim, s/o Shaik Moulaali, Telephone Exchange, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 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 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, rep., by its Director General, New Delhi. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 more in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners while regularizing their juniors who were appointed subsequent to the petitioners even though there are number of vacancies as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and subversive of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners to the cadre of Lineman with all consequential benefits and pass such other and further orders Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.D.LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.R.S.MURTHY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 24783 of 2004 ORDER: 1. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners while regularizing their juniors who were appointed subsequent to the petitioners even though there are number of vacancies, as illegal , arbitrary, discriminatory , unjust and subversive of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners to the cadre of Lineman with all consequential benefits. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as casual mazdoors under the control of the 1st respondent during the years 1982-83, 1-5-1987, September, 1985, January, 1986, September, 1985, 1-2-1989, March, 1986, 1-11- 1989, 1-10-1982, July,1982, December,1988 and 4-6-1998 respectively. Since then they have been continuing as casual mazdoors without any complaints. They have completed over 14 to 20 years service as casual mazdoors to the satisfaction of their superiors. Respondents instead of continuing petitioners’ services and conferring the benefits like temporary status and regularization of services, terminated their services during the year 1998 on the ground that they have submitted bogus work days certificates in support of work done by them. The above termination orders were the subject matter of various O.As before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and also before this Court in writ petition No.23456 of 1998 and batch. This court initially passed interim orders directing continuation of their services and finally disposed of the writ petition No.23456 of 1998 and batch on 22-11-2000 directing the respondents to engage the petitioners and to regularize their services by formulating a scheme. 3. It is also stated that the first respondent in his letter.No.E-6-46/Vol.XII/02/03/12, dated 5-9-2002 furnished their service particulars and requested the Assistant General Manager (Administration), O/o.Chief General Manager, Telecom, to consider the cases for regularization of services sympathetically as there are good number of R.M.vacancies, but so far the petitioners have not been conferred temporary status and status of regular Mazdoor though they have completed 240 days of service. Having rendered very long service without furnishing any reason or cause, the respondents are regularizing their juniors, which is highly arbitrary. 4. It is also stated that there are about 120 vacancies and only 9 persons were considered for conferring temporary status, ignoring petitioners rightful claim. It is also stated that petitioners are continuing in the scale of 2550-55-2660-60-3200 though the casual mazdoors were given the I.D.A. Pay scale of 4000-120-5800 by proceedings dated 21-5-2004 and the same was not extended to the petitioners. Hence, this writ petition. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the petitioners have fabricated the record of their engagement in the Railway Electrification Project for the period from 3/85 to 3/87 to gain entry in the department. The petitioners were disengaged in 1993 after a detailed enquiry with opportunity to the petitioners. It is also stated that by virtue of the orders of this court on 22-11-2000, the petitioners are engaged afresh as casual labourers, but there is no scope to consider the petitioners as permanent employees. It is also stated that by virtue of the orders passed by this court dated 22- 11-2000, the petitioners are to be treated as fresh entrants as casual labourers and the conferment of temporary status is subject to formulation of the scheme and there is no such scheme sofar in addition to the scheme that was formulated on 7- 11-1989. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the rights of the petitioners have already been adjudicated by this court and no fresh rights can be conferred on the petitioners. On the earlier occasion in W.P.No. 23456 of 1998 and batch, this court initially passed interim direction to continue the services of the petitioners and ultimately disposed of the writ petitions with the following order: “Taking into consideration the fact that these petitioners have worked as casual labourers( Mazdur) under the respondent-management for such a long period ranging from 1985-86 till date, though pursuant to the interim direction granted by this court, and many of them might have already crossed the age of eligibility and without taking into consideration the genuineness or otherwise of the certificates produced by them, it is now ordered that the respondent-management shall engage these petitioners afresh as casual laboures from this day and pay them the wages and other emoluments payable to the casual labourers from this day. Regarding regularization of these petitioners, it shall depend upon the future exigency, any scheme launched by the management, the suitability of the workmen etc.” 8. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in addition to the scheme that was formulated on 7-11-1989, there is no fresh scheme that has been launched and, therefore, question of considering the case of the petitioners for regularization does not arise. 9. There is no dispute to the factum that the petitioners are continuing in service as Casual Mazdoors. It is also placed before this court the scheme of confirmation of regular status i.e. temporary status of the casual labourers contained in letter No.269-10/89/STN,dated 7.11.1989 which contemplates the rules for formulation of temporary status at paragraph No.5 which reads as follows: i) Temporary Status would be conferred on all the casual labourers currently employed and who have rendered a continuous service of atleast one year, out of which they must have been engaged on work for a period of 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing five day week). Such casual labourers will be designated as Temporary Mazdoor. ii) Such conferment of temporary status would be without reference to the creation/availability of regular Gr.D posts. iii) Conferment of temporary status on a casual laboruer would not involve any change in his duties and responsibilities. The engagement will be on daily rates of pay on a need basis. He may be deployed anywhere within the recruitment unit/territorial circles on the basis of availability of work. iv) Such casual labourers who acquire temporary status will not, however, be brought on to the permanent establishment unless they are selected through regular selection process for Gr.D posts. and the paragraph 6 of the said letter contemplates the benefits that would be entitled by the casual labourers consequent to the confirmation of temporary status which reads as under: i) Wages at daily rates with reference to the minimum of the pay scale for a regular Gr.D official including DA, HRA and CCA. ii) Benefits in respect of increments in pay scale will be admissible for every one year of service subject to performance of duty for at least 240 days (206 days in administrative offices observing 5 day week) in the year. iii) Leave entitlement will be on a pro-rata basis, one day for every 10 days of work. Casual leave or any other kind of leave will not be admissible. They will also be allowed to carry forward the leave at their credit on their regularsiation. They will not be entitled to the benefit of encashment of leave on termination of services for any reason or their quitting service. iv) Counting of 50% of service rendered under Temporary status for the purpose of retirement benefits after their regularization. v) After rendering three years continuous service on attainment of temporary status, the casual labourers would be treated on a par with temporary Gr.D employees for the purpose of contribution to General Provident Fund, and would also further be eligible for the grant of Festival Advance/Flood Advance on the same conditions as are applicable to temporary Gr.D. employees, provided they furnish the sureties from permanent Govt. Servants of this Department. vi) Until they are regularized, they would be entitled to Productivity Linked Bonus only at rates as applicable to casual labour.” 10. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the petitioners do not fall within the parameters of the scheme, their case was not considered for confirmation of temporary status and regularization as they are not entitled for the same. What it is stated in the counter affidavit is that the services of the petitioners are treated as fresh entrants as causal labourers and confirmation of temporary status is subject to the formulation of a new scheme and there is no such scheme so far in addition to the scheme that was formulated on 7-11-1989. In view of the same, it is clear that the services of the petitioners have been considered as casual labourers as fresh entrants and confirmation of the temporary status is subject to the formulation of the new scheme and there is no such scheme sofar in addition to the scheme that was formulated on 7.11.1989. 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. Unless and until the authorities concerned have passed the orders satisfying the reasons as to the entitlement of temporary status and regularization of the petitioners, who are working as casual labourers since long time, it cannot be said that they are not entitled for the same. 11. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, I am of the view that justice would be met if the writ petition is disposed of with the following direction. 12. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of Scheme dated 7.11.1989 i.e. “Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, for temporary status and regularization, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ______________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J 17-06-2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}