THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Application No.98 of 2012 In Contempt Case No.547 of 2011 (Dated: 06-07-2012) Between: K.Nageswara Rao S/o K.Nagaiah and others …Petitioners A n d Sri Yethirajulu, Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.State Handloom Weaver’s Cooperative Society Limited Narayanaguda, Hyderabad ….Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Application No.98 of 2012 In Contempt Case No.547 of 2011 ORDER: This contempt application has been filed under Section 151 CPC by the petitioners in C.C.No.547 of 2011 to recall the order dated 16- 11-2011 passed therein. 2. The petitioners are employees in Andhra Pradesh State Handloom Weaver’s Cooperative Society Limited, Hyderabad. They filed Writ Petition No.24359 of 2000 seeking a direction to the respondents to regularize their services on par with their juniors, namely, M.Kalavathi and G.S.Anna Rao. The writ petition came to be disposed of on 11-8-2010 directing the respondents to consider regularization of services of the petitioners on part with juniors in the cadres in which they are entitled to be absorbed and put them on regular timescale and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioners filed Contempt Case No.547 of 2011 complaining disobedience of the order dated 11-8-2010 passed in W.P.No.24359 of 2000. 3. The respondent filed counter in the contempt case. After hearing the counsel appearing for the parties and taking into consideration the material placed on record, this Court, by order dated 16-11-2011 dismissed the contempt case. For better appreciation, I may refer para (13) of the order passed in the contempt case, which reads as hereunder:- “ 13. The contention of the petitioners in the writ petition is that their services are not regularized and whereas the services of the employees, who are juniors to them, are regularized. They stated two names in the writ affidavit with whom they compared. The respondent in the counter affidavit filed in the contempt case clarifying that regularization of two individuals whose names have been referred in the order passed in the writ petition is irregular and the proceedings issued regularizing the services have been recalled and thereupon, the above-referred two individuals approached the High Court and obtained an interim order. Since the proceedings issued regularizing the services of the two individuals have been recalled, it is impermissible for the petitioners to contend that the employees, who are juniors to them have been regularized. In the reply affidavit filed in the contempt case, the petitioners have stated some more names whom they contend are juniors to them. The respondent in the additional counter furnished the service particulars of the individuals and asserted that they are not juniors to the petitioners. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that their services are not regularized, despite of the regularization of the services of the individuals, who are juniors to them, has no substance. The regularization of services of the daily wage workers/consolidated employees has to be done in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-4-1994. The Supreme Court in the above-referred decision, has specifically stated that regularization is a one-time measure and the employees who complete five years as on 22-4-1994 alone are entitled to be considered for regularization. The respondent asserted in the additional counter that all the petitioners have been appointed on 01-6-1989. No contra material has been placed before me by the petitioners that they are appointed prior to 01-6-1989. Admittedly, they have not completed five years of service as on 25-11-1993. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the respondent disobeyed the orders dated 11- 08-2010 passed in W.P.No.24359 of 2000 has no substance.” 4. The instant application has been filed by the petitioners seeking recall of the order dated 16-11-2011 passed in C.C.No.547 of 2011 on the ground that the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. M.L.Kesari[1] has not been considered. For better appreciation, I may refer para (4) of the affidavit filed in support of the instant application, which reads as hereunder:- “4) It is submitted that the 4th petitioner was appointed on 1-12-1984 and the other petitions were appointed on 1-6- 1989. This Hon’ble Court has overlooked the fact that persons whose names are referred to in the order. Even in her case, no relief is granted by this Hon’ble Court. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgments reported in 2006(3) SLR page 1 and 2011(1) all the temporary employees having 10 years of service are entitled to be considered for regularization. In view of the order, it is just and proper that the order dt.16-11-2011 be re-called and the matter be re- heard”. 5. Heard Sri B.G.Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for APCO appearing for the respondent. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. M.L.Kesari (1 supra), has not been considered while disposing of the contempt case and had the judgment been brought to the notice of the Court, respondents ought to have been directed to regularize the services of the petitioners. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the petitioners are not seeking regularization of their services under G.O.Ms.No.212, dt.22-4-94, but they are seeking regularization on the ground of their being in service for a quite long time. 7. The contempt case came to be dismissed on two grounds. Firstly; regularization proceedings issued in respect of two persons, who are stated to be juniors to the petitioners have been recalled by the respondent and therefore, no juniors to the petitioners have been regularized in which case, it cannot be said that direction given in the writ petition to regularize the services of the petitioners on par with the juniors cannot be said to have been violated and secondly; as per the decision of the Supreme Court in A.Manjula Bhashini v. A.P.Women’s Coop. Finance Corpn. Ltd.[2], regularization is a onetime measure and it can be considered only in respect of those, who had continuously worked for five years and were continuing as on 25-11-1993. The judgment on which learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance relate to the general observations made by the Supreme Court with regard to the regularization of services of daily wage employees and persons appointed on temporary basis and those who are serving on ad hoc basis in Zilla Panchayats. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a specific Order, i.e., G.O.Ms.No.212, dt. 22-4-1994 with regard to regularization of services of daily wage workers, temporary employees etcetera. The Supreme Court categorically held that the employees who have completed five years of service as on 25-11-1993 only are eligible for regularization. There is no error apparent in the order dated 16-11- 2011 passed in Contempt Case No.547 of 2011. 8. The contempt application is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.06-07-2012 RAR [1] 2011(1) Service Law Reporter 598 [2] (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 431