LexTHE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURE & COOPERATION GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. versus K.KESAVULU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURE &
A
COOPERATION GOVERNMENT OF
ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.
v.
K.KESAVULU
' )
B
NOVEMBER 29, 2007
[DR. ARIJIT P ASAY AT AND AFT AB ALAM, JJ.]
Service Law: Regularisation-Claim of-Services of daily wage c
employee converted into regular last grade service by proceedings
dated 1. 3.1991-Subsequently services regularized w. e.f 1. 4.1999, by
proceedings in G.O.Ms. No 98 of 1.4.1999-Benefits o,f earlier
-I
regularization w.e.f 1.3.1991, claim of-Granted by courts below-
Held: Order by which regularization was directed on 1. 3.1991 was a D
wrong G. 0. which was subsequently rectified and correct G. O.Ms. was
referred to-However, employee did not fulfill the conditions laid down
therein and as such not entitled to the benefit flowing from the
G.O.Ms.-Services were regularised in 1999 pursuant to G.0.Ms.
No. 98of1. 4.1999-Thus, Orders of Court below indefensible and set E
aside.
Respondent was appointed as watchman on temporary basis
by proceedings dated 21.4.1980. Pursuant to G.O.Ms. 9 dated
r
8.1.1981 by proceedings dated 1.3.1991, services ofrespondent and
F
others were converted into regular last grade service. However, by
proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 1.4.1999, services of the
respondent was again regularized pursuant to G.O.Ms. No.212
dated 22.4.1994. Proceedings dated 8.4.1999 were issued considering
him as regular employee w.e.f. 1.4.1999. Aggrieved, respondent
sought regularization into last grade service w.e.f. 1.3.1991 and G
•
invalidation of proceedings in G.O.Ms. No.98dated1.4.1999 and
proceedings dated 8.4.1999. Tribunal held that that the subsequent
scheme ofregularization issued in G.O.Ms. No.212 dated 22.4.1994
would not deprive the respondent of the benefits of earlier
689
H
690
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 12 S.C.R.
A regularization. It held that the services of the respondent and others
were regularized under earlier orders, and, therefore, G.O.Ms.
No.98dated1.4.1999 could not be applied to the respondent's case.
Appellants filed writ petition challenging the order and the same was
dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
B
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The Order by which the regularization was directed
on 1.3.1991 referred to a wrong G.O. i.e. G.O.Ms. No.9 (F&P
(FW.PRC VI) Dept. dated 8.1.1981. The same related to
c regularization and conversion into regular posts. Noticing the
illegality in the order of regularization cancellation was directed by
order dated 23.9.1991 wherein the correct G.O.Ms. i.e. 124 dated
22.2.1991 was referred to and it was clearly stated that the
respondent had not fulfilled the conditions laid down in G.O. Ms.
D 124 (F & A Agri.IV) dated 22.2.1991 and as such was not entitled to
the benefit flowing from the said G.O.Ms. The concerned G.O.
related to persons who had completed five years of service before
1.2.1980. Respondent was appointed on 21.4.1980 and, therefore,
he did not fulfil the condition. The regularization in 1999 was done
E pursuant to G.O.Ms. No.98 dated 1.4.1999. This regularization was
under another scheme. [Paras 6, 7 and 10) [692-C, D, E; 693-B, CJ
1.2. The question of his regularization did not arise. It is not
the case of the respondent that he was to be regularised in terms of
G.O.Ms. No.124 dated 22.2.1991. The Tribunal and the High Court
F
clearly lost sight of this basic fact. That being so, the orders of the
Tribunal and the High Court are indefensible and are set aside.
[Para 11) [693-D, E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5525 of
G 2007.
From the Final Order dated 26.10.2004 of the High Court of
Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No. 19374/2004.
D. Bharathi Reddy for the Appellants.
H
R. Santhan Krishnan, K. Radha Rani, Praveen K. Pandey, P. Vijaya
i
{
I
SECRETARYTOGOVT.AGRl.&COOPERATIONGOVT. 691
~
OF ANDHRAPRADESHv.K.KESAVULU [PASAYAT,J.]
Kumar and D. Mahesh Babu for the Respondent.
A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
)
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench B
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by
the appellant. In the writ petition correctness of order passed by the
Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (in short the
'Tribunal') was questioned.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
c
Respondent was appointed as Watchman at the Seed Stores,
PitchatExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.