THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. Nos. 1821 of 2003 and 15279 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: W.P. No. 1821 of 2003 is filed seeking a Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in subordinate cadre as the action of respondents in keeping them an daily wage basis with effect from 1989 and 1995 respectively without regularization in spite of recommendations as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Whereas, W.P. No. 15279 of 2008 is filed seeking a Mandamus calling the records pertaining to regularization of services of Juniors than the petitioners and direct the respondents to regularize the petitioners in subordinate cadre, as the action of respondents in keeping the petitioners on daily wages with effect from 1989 and 1995 respectively without regularization in spite of recommendations from their respective employers is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since petitioners in both the writ petitions are one and the same and the issue that arises for consideration in both the writ petitions is akin to each other, they are disposed of by this common order. It appears, petitioners are working in the Cargo Extension Counter (Air Cargo Complex) since 1989 and 1995 as Water Boy and Sweeper respectively. It is their case that they have put in 21 and 15 years of service respectively. While that being so, vide letter dated 16.5.1997, 2nd respondent recommended for payment of consolidated wages of Rs.440/- and, in fact, it was extended to them. In 1998, 2nd respondent wrote a letter to Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office to furnish particulars of temporary service of both the petitioners for their appointment as Sweepers, which has not been materialized till date for the reasons best known to the respondents. Even in May, 1998 a copy of the letter was given to 2nd respondent for furnishing proposals recommending appointment of petitioners as Sweepers only at the Extension Counter Branch, pursuant to which petitioners had submitted their applications for their appointment/regularization of services. However, till date nothing has been happened. Even the cases of the petitioners were referred for appointment in the subordinate cadre during June, 2002 in pursuance of which they had submitted their bio-data. On 5.8.2002 3rd respondent wrote a letter to the Zonal Office, wherein he said that the application of 1st petitioner for appointment of Peon was forwarded. Even they recommended for 1/3rd scale of wages to 1st petitioner. Since their cases were not processed in spite of several recommendations, petitioners made a representation on 3.10.2002 to which the Zonal Office issued a letter dated 26.10.2002 whereby even their consolidated payments were stopped. It is the case of the petitioners that the services of two persons who are working along with them, namely, K. Shankar Babu and B. Ganesh, who were taken on daily wage basis with effect from May, 2001 and December, 1999 respectively are regularized and they were transferred to different Branches, whereas, the services of the petitioners, though working for more than 15 years, are not regularized and they are still working on daily wage basis. No counter filed. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners are only temporary and daily wage employees and they have no right whatsoever to claim regularization of their services. As and when a Scheme is evolved, it is for the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization etc. Under those circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, respondents are directed to look into the service particulars of the petitioners and the recommendations made by 3rd respondent earlier and also verify as to any of the juniors to the petitioners are regularized in the respondent-Organisation and pass appropriate orders regularizing the services of the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioners. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 10-02-2011. MVB.