IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 36297 of 1998 Between: Y.Eranna, S/o. Y.Prabanna. R/o. 25/671, Havannapet, Adoni-518 301, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman cum Managing Director, National Textile Corporation Ltd., a Govt.of India Undertaking 29/2, K.H.Road,Nanjappa Mansion, Shantinagar, Bangalore-27. 2 The General Manager, Adoni Cotton Mills, Adoni, Kurnnol District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 to call for the records from the respondents and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of respondents in not regularising the service of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment, having appointed in a clear existing vacancy of Time Keeper, as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, discriminatory, amounts to unfari labour practice and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and further declare that the petitioner is entitled for the regular scales of pay attached to the post of Time Keeper; and grant all consequential benefits; and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents : MR.P.KAMLAKAR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.36297 OF 1998 O R D E R: The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled for regularization of the services attached to the post of time keeper and for all consequential benefits. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would place before this Court a copy of the proceedings dated 07-05-2003 to submit that the petitioner’s services as a junior clerk was confirmed with effect from 01-04-2003 in the grade of Rs.142-505 and that he was being given an annual increment of Rs.9/- with effect from 01-04-2003 and his basic scale raised to Rs.151/-. Sri P.Kamalakar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, would express ignorance of these proceedings. Learned counsel would state that from the year 2002 onwards all the units of the respondent-Corporation in Andhra Pradesh have been closed. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would however, contend that since one Smt T.Sharada, a junior clerk-cum-typist, was given the benefit of regularization, on completion of one year service, the petitioner is entitled for parity in treatment and failure on the part of the respondents in regularizing the services of the petitioner one year after he was initially appointed was discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel would state that since the petitioner was appointed initially on 30-06-1995, his services ought to have been regularized at least from 01-07-1996 onwards. On a query from this Court, Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would fairly state that Smt T.Sharada was appointed much prior to the petitioner herein and that she is not junior to the petitioner in service. No right accrues in favour of any employee to seek regularization of his services merely because he had completed 240 days of service from the date of his initial appointment (Madhyamik Siksha Parishad, U.P. v. Anil Kumar Mishra[1]) and as such, this Court would not be justified in issuing a mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner. The plea of discrimination cannot also be countenanced as neither is Smt T.Sharada junior to the petitioner nor has she been arrayed as a respondent in the writ petition and, in her absence, this Court may not be justified in examining the plea of discrimination. (Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh[2]). The submission of Sri P.Kamalakar, learned counsel for the respondents, on the basis of the averments in the counter-affidavit, that the respondent-Corporation is sick, that there was a ban on recruitment and the claim of the Corporation for rehabilitation was approved by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, cannot also be ignored. In the light of these circumstances, I do not consider it appropriate to issue a direction as sought for by the petitioner herein. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would, however, submit, placing reliance on the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, that the petitioner’s request for regularization had been forwarded by the second respondent on 21- 10-1998, despite which the petitioner’s case was not considered. He would also submit that the petitioner had made several representations requesting that he be extended such a benefit. If, as submitted by Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner’s services as a junior clerk have been regularized with effect from 01-04-2003 and the proposal submitted by the second respondent has not yet been considered, the first respondent or his delegate may examine such a proposal and pass orders thereupon in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. _______________________ Ramesh Ranganathan,J Dated 18th February, 2008 vrn ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Chairman cum Managing Director, National Textile Corporation Ltd., a Govt.of India Undertaking 29/2, K.H.Road,Nanjappa Mansion, Shantinagar, Bangalore-27. 2 The General Manager, Adoni Cotton Mills, Adoni, Kurnnol District. 3. 2CCs to 4. 2CD copies [1] AIR 1994 SC 1638 [2] AIR 1995 SC 705