IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 21433 of 2001 Between: J.V.Ramana Murthy, S/o. Appa Rao, R/o. Saraswathi Nilayam, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam - 17 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Hindustan Ship Yard Limited, Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Visakhapatnam - 500 035 2 Chief Manager (Personnel), Hindustan Ship Yard Limited, Visakhapatnam - 500 035 .....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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the action of the Respondents in not regularizing the service of the petitioner's services from 9.1.1989 and not granting increments is wholly arbitrary, illegal and void and consequently direct the Respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as paintermate with effect from 9.1.1989 and grant all eligible increments including seniority and promotion with arrears; and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.21433 of 2001 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner’s services from 09.1.1989 and not granting increments is wholly arbitrary, illegal and void and consequentially direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner as paintermate with effect from 09.1.1989 and grant all eligible increments including seniority and promotion with arrears. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to ST community and his name was sponsored by the employment exchange to the first respondent. Consequently he received a letter dated 22.10.1981 from the Senior Labour Officer of the first respondent directing him to appear before him for verification of all original certificates and testimonials for the interview/written test, for the post of Paintermate. Accordingly, he appeared for the interview along with original certificates including caste certificate while appointed as a Paintermate by order dated 30.12.1981 w.e.f. 2.1.1982. Due to unsuitable gas eminating from the spray paints he became frequently sick. It resulted for termination of service by the management by order, dated 3.4.1985. Questioning the said termination order, he filed W.P.No.279 of 1986 and by order dated 8.12.1988, this court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of termination. Thereafter, the respondent/management issued appointment order dated 23.12.1988 afresh. In the said letter a condition was imposed that he shall produce a latest caste certificate and on receipt of the said letter of appointment order, he brought to the notice of the management that community certificate was produced by him at the time of initial appointment and the same was accepted. Therefore, it is not necessary to submit a fresh caste certificate. However, he joined the duty on 9.1.1989. But the respondent/management has insisted for production of caste certificate. Therefore, questioning the demand of the management to produce a fresh certificate he filed OS.No.635 of 1990 on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam and the same was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 7.12.1996 but with certain observations in spite of the same the services of the petitioner have not been regularized. 3. On behalf of the respondent, a counter-affidavit has been filed stating the reasons why the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had submitted the caste certificate at the time of the appointment in the year 1981 and when he was irregular in attending duties, he was terminated. Questioning the same, he filed a writ petition No.279 of 1986 and the same was allowed and the impugned order was set aside and consequently he was reinstated w.e.f.23.10.1998 and therefore, pursuant to the order passed by this court in the writ petition he was reinstated. Therefore, the question of producing the caste certificate does not arise and it is only with a view to deny the benefit of regularization of the service of the petitioner the respondents have initiated the action of insisting the petitioner to produce the certificate. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition seeking regularization of services from the date of his appointment ie., pursuant to the order dated 23.12.1998 w.e.f. 9.1.1989. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Paintermate on 30.12.1991. His services were terminated w.e.f. 1985. Questioning which he filed a writ petition No.279 of 1986 this court by order dated 8.12.1988 allowed the writ petition. The operative portion of the order made in the writ petition is as under: “Admittedly, the petitioner got issued a legal notice to the respondents to which the respondents got issued a reply notice dated September, 25, 1985. In the said notice issued through the counsel, the petitioner has reiterated the statement which he made in paragraph 4 of the affidavit. In the reply also, it has not been disputed of those facts. From them it would be apparent that the petitioner was affected with intermittent illness due to unsuitable gas and paints. As a result, he was frequently absent. Since sufficient time has passed by from the time of termination till now, the interests of justice would subserve if a direction is given to the respondents to take the petitioner as a fresh candidate and give him fresh appointment for a period of six months and if the petitioner still continues to be irregular during this period of six months, it is open to the respondents to terminate his service without any notice intimating of the same fact and if he is regular then his service may be continued”. 6. Pursuant to the order made in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed afresh by proceedings dated 23.12.1988 issued by the respondent and the appointment has been given effect w.e.f. 9.1.1989. In the said appointment order, a condition was imposed to produce fresh caste certificate of which the petitioner was agreed. Pursuant to the same, the respondents have insisted the petitioner to produce the caste certificate. At that stage, the petitioner filed OS No.635 of 1993 on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam and the learned I Additional District Munsif had disposed the suit vide judgment, dated 7.12.1996 with the following directions, which has become final. “1) that the suit is dismissed in respect of the relief of the declaration and injunction sought for by the plaintiff? 2) that the defendant is hereby directed not to terminate the service of the plaintiff till the enquiry by the Revenue Department with regard to the community status of the plaintiff is concluded and till the time the result is intimated by the District Collector to the defendant? 3) That if the result is against the plaintiff and if it is found that he does not belong to Schedule Tribe the defendant is at liberty to forthwith terminate the services of the plaintiff; and 4) That the parties are directed to bear their own costs. 7. From the above terms of the decree and judgment in O.S.No.635 of 1993, it is clear that though the petitioner was appointed afresh pursuant to the proceedings issued by the respondent Management dated dt.23.12.1998 wherein a condition was imposed to produce the fresh caste certificate to which the petitioner agreed but later he was issued number of notices and at a later stage, he filed a suit referred to above and the same was decreed in respect of certain reliefs sought for by the petitioner which it is clear that the District Collector and Magistrate has conducted an enquiry into the social status of the petitioner, but he has not submitted the report so far. The reasons are not specified as to why such a report has not been communicated to the respondent-Management. No reasons stated either by the petitioner in his affidavit or by the respondent in their counter as to what is reason for pendency of the matter on the file of the District Collector. The aspect of regularization is a right of an employee and unless there is a justifiable reason, no employee can be deprived of his regularization of services. In the instant case, admittedly, the suit was disposed of, by order, dated 7.12.1996 by which time the enquiry was already conducted by the District Collector into the matter and no reasons have been stated in the counter-affidavit with reference to the steps taken by the respondent- management for getting the report from the District Collector. However, the fact remains that the benefit of regularization has not been given because of the non-receipt of the report from the District Collector. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the writ petition can be disposed of with the following direction. 8. The respondents are directed to take appropriate action for getting the report from the District Collector and District Magistrate, who conducted the enquiry into the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, and within one month thereafter, the respondent is directed to pass the appropriate orders as the issue of regularization of the services of the petitioner. 9. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J 24th February, 2009 Note: Furnish copy in one week. B/o PNV THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.21433 of 2001 24th February, 2009