IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No : 13161 of 2000 Between: P.Anjaneyulu, Cuddapah. ..... PETITIONER AND The Executive Officer, TTD, Chittoor District, Tirupathi. .....RESPONDENT 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 particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s case for regularization of his services as arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner’s services in dharma prachara parishad in TTD’s service, as had been done in respect of similarly situated employees, with all other consequential beneﬁts, pecuniary and otherwise. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No :13161 of 2000 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The writ petition is ﬁled praying for issue one of a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s case for regularization of his services, as arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal, and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner’s services in Dharma Prachara Parishad in TTD’s service, as had been done in respect of similarly situated employees, with all other consequential benefits, pecuniary and otherwise. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance to the orders issued by the Executive Oﬃcer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, (TTDs)-the 1st respondent herein, he was appointed as an Attender in TTDs to work in Dharma Prachara Parishad (DPP) Center at Cuddapah, w.e.f 1.12.1990. He was given daily wages at the rate of Rs.10/- per day payable on monthly basis. However, on the representations made by the petitioner, the 1st respondent, by proceedings Roc.No.GC4/4047/DPP/91, dated 16.12.1991, enhanced the wages from Rs.10/- to Rs.15/- per day. It is further case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as an Attender, yet his services were utilized as programme/organizing Assistant, in DPP Centre at Cuddapah, taking into consideration of his educational qualiﬁcations and ability to discharge the said duties as he has passed intermediate examination prior to his appointment in TTDs. Pending the writ petition, he also ﬁled WPMP No.8697 of 2008, seeking direction to the respondents to consider his case for regularization his services, as has been done in respect of similarly situated employees, in the light of the clariﬁcation issued in G.O.Ms.No.2500 Rev.(Endts.III) Department, dated 27.11.2007, pending disposal of the writ petition, and in the counter aﬃdavit, he categorically stated that the Executive Committee of DPP in its Resolution No.68, dated 24.11.2005, has approved to extend the minimum time scale of pay to the petitioner along with three other persons, who were employed in DPP since 1990-1991, subject to the approval of the TTD Trust Board in its impending meeting held on 25.12.2005. The Board of Trusties, TTDs in its Resolution No.537, dated 25.12.2005, resolved to pay the minimum time scale of pay to the petitioner along with three other persons, who have long standing in DPP. Pursuant to the above, the 1st respondent has issued orders vide proceedings Roc.No.DP1/619/DPP/98, dated 5.1.2006, requesting the 2nd respondent to draw the pay and allowances in respect of the petitioner along with three others in the minimum time scale of pay applicable to the last grade service. Accordingly, he was being paid salary in the time scale of pay w.e.f 1.1.2006. It is further case of the petitioner that the reason for not considering the petitioner for regularization of his services is that, he has not completed ﬁve years of service as on 25.11.1993 as contemplated in Act No.2 of 1994. Recently, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.2500 Rev.(Endts.-III) Department, dated 27.11.2007, clarifying that in view of the amendment to Section 2 of Act No.2 of 1994 as per the Amended Act No.27/1998, the TTDs would not come within the purview of Act No.2 of 1994 since the salaries of its employees are not being provided by the Government. In pursuance to the said clariﬁcation issued by the State Government, the services of several daily wage employees etc., who were appointed in TTD College Hostels, even after 1993, have been regularized in TTDs. As submitted above, the petitioner was appointed in DPP on 1.12.1990 and since then, he has been continuously working and he has put in more than 17 years of continuous service. Therefore, he is eligible for being considered for regularization of his services. On behalf of the respondents, a counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled in the writ petition and it is stated that the DPP is a separate unit, which is depending on the yearly grants given by the T.T.Devasthanams and it is having separate set of Service Rules. All the DPP staﬀ were initially appointed on consolidated pay during 1980s and the services of all the employees were regularized with eﬀect from 1.12.1987 as per TTD Board’s Resolution, dated 25.12.1987. Later, in order to cope-up with the work in DPP centers for better propagation, as there is ban on appointments, the organizers of certain DPP centers were permitted to engage daily wage workers, duly meeting the wages from out of the Imprest amount of the centre. The service rules of DPP were approved by the Government and notiﬁed vide G.O.Ms.No.107, Revenue (Endts-III) Department, dated 3.2.1993, and the DPP is not covered under the T.T.D service rules. In view of the said ground, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for the regularization of the services. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled by the petitioner along with WPMP, it is categorically stated that DPP in its Resolution No.68, dated 24.11.2005, has approved to extend the minimum time scale of pay to the petitioner along with three other persons, who were employed in DPP since 1990-1991, subject to the approval of the TTD Trust Board in its impending meeting held on 25.12.2005. The Board of Trusties, TTDs in its Resolution No.537, dated 25.12.2005, resolved to pay the minimum time scale of pay to the petitioner along with three other persons who have long standing in DPP. Pursuant to the above, the 1st respondent has issued orders vide proceedings Roc.No.DP1/619/DPP/98, dated 5.1.2006, requesting the 2nd respondent to draw the pay and allowances in respect of the petitioner along with three others in the minimum time scale of pay applicable to the last grade service. Accordingly, he was being paid salary in the time scale of pay w.e.f 1.1.2006. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is working in the DPP since 1990 and by virtue of the proceedings Roc.No.DP1/619/DPP/98, dated 5.1.2006 issued by the 1st respondent, the petitioner has been paid the minimum time scale of pay w.e.f 1.1.2006. Therefore, the issue is only pending consideration of the regularization of the services of the petitioner. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services as per law, within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order. No costs. _____________________ Justice G. Chandraiah Date:13.06.2008 mrb