Telangana High Court
G. Venkateshwarlu, Nalgonda Dist. vs M.D., Transco, Hyd. And 2 Ors. on 23 July, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.35680 of 2012
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, more particularly,
respondent No.3 in issuing the impugned order vide
Lr.No.DE/OP/SRPT/JAO/ADM/D.No.2195/12 dated 16.10.2012,
rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization, the present writ
petition has been filed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had joined the
services of respondent Corporation on 19.09.1989 as a Village
Electricity Worker, and he had been working as such, until the
respondents prevented him from discharging his duties in December,
1997. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for an interview on
08.02.1999, after which, he was once permitted to discharge his
duties, by re-employing him in the same post of Village Electricity
Officer from March, 2002. However, without assigning any reasons,
the respondents once again orally terminated him on 01.08.2002.
Thus, the petitioner approached the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, and
filed I.D.No.31 of 2005, which was allowed vide award dated
24.10.2006, setting aside the oral termination order dated
2
PK, J
W.P.No.35680 of 2012
01.08.2002, and the respondents were directed to reinstate the
petitioner as Village Electricity Worker, with continuity of service but
not back wages and attendant benefits. Thereafter, in compliance
with the award of the Labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated into
service as a Junior Lineman on yearly contract basis, and he has
been working as such since 30.06.2008, without any remarks.
However, while the respondents regularized the services of the
employees who have continuously worked for more than one year, in
spite of availability of vacancies, the petitioner’s services were not
regularized. As such, he was constrained to file W.P.No.8975 of 2012
before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.07.2012,
directing the respondents to consider the representation of the
petitioner dated 10.02.2012 and pass appropriate orders. However,
the present impugned order dated 16.10.2012 has been passed,
rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization. Hence, the
present writ petition.
3. Heard Sri K. Ram Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3
PK, J
W.P.No.35680 of 2012
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the services of
the petitioner’s juniors, viz., Mr. M. Venkat Reddy, Mr. Ch. Ratna
Sekhar and Mr. P. Lakshmaiah, who were also initially appointed as
Village Electricity Workers and later worked as Junior Linemen on
contract basis from 20.08.2002, were regularized w.e.f., 10.02.2005.
However, the case of the petitioner was arbitrarily and illegally
rejected by respondent No.3 on untenable and unsustainable
grounds. It is contended that the respondents have shown a
discriminatory treatment in the case of the petitioner, alleging that he
was absent to duty at the time of the notification. However, it was the
respondents who had illegally terminated the petitioner’s services on
01.08.2002, and the petitioner was pursuing the I.D. It is further
submitted that the respondents considered the case of one similar
placed candidate, Mr. Miryala Venkat Reddy, who was also
unavailable on the date of publication of the notification in the local
newspaper, and regularized his services in 2005. As such, the
respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner too,
for regularization.
5. It is further submitted that the petitioner had passed I.T.I. in
Electrical Trade, and that although B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997
had been withdrawn in 2007, since his claim for regularization is
4
PK, J
W.P.No.35680 of 2012
prior to the said withdrawal, the petitioner is eligible for
regularization, more so, with effect from 1997 itself. It is also
submitted that even assuming the said B.P.Ms.No.36 is not applicable
to the case of the petitioner, he is still entitled for regularization of his
services, since he has completed more than one year of service from
the date of his appointment on 30.06.2008, on par with his juniors.
As such, it is contended that the impugned rejection order dated
16.10.2012, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust,
contrary to law and in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner
prays this Court to allow the present writ petition by setting aside the
impugned rejection order dated 16.10.2012 and to direct the
respondents to grant all consequential benefits. In support of his
claim, the petitioner relies on the decision of the erstwhile High Court
of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in M.V. Chalapathi
and another v. Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad,
Hyderabad and others 1.
6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent submits that though the petitioner was initially engaged
as a Village Electricity Worker during 1989, he was not in continuous
1 1999 (3) ALD 644 (DB)
5
PK, J
W.P.No.35680 of 2012
service until 1997, as he had worked during the said period with
irregular and intermittent breaks, whereas, Mr. M. Venkat Reddy, Mr.
Ch. Ratna Sekhar, although they were juniors to the petitioner, they
had worked continuously without any gap on musters. Further, they
were present as on the date of the advertisement/notification, and
attended interview. Therefore, they were appointed as Contract
Junior Linemen, and their services were regularized w.e.f.,
10.05.2005. However, the petitioner was in a habit of absconding
from duties intermittently. As such, his request for regularization
was denied due to his irregular attendance to his duties, as reported
by the Village Sarpanch. It is further submitted that the contention of
the petitioner that Mr. M. Venkat Reddy, was not available as on the
date of publication of the notification is incorrect, as he was on
muster rolls, yet attended the interview in terms of the notification
issued in the local newspaper. As such, his case was considered for
regularization along with the similarly situated candidates. Thus,
there is no discriminatory treatment against the petitioner.
7. It is further submitted that in the year 2005, the petitioner
approached the Labour Court and filed I.D.No.31 of 2005, and in
pursuance of the award passed by the Labour Court dated
24.10.2006, the petitioner was continued as Contract Labour on
6
PK, J
W.P.No.35680 of 2012
daily-wage basis, but not as a Junior Lineman, and he has been
working as such since 30.06.2008 only. Further, had the petitioner
been on muster rolls continuously on par with his colleagues, his
case would have been considered and his services would also have
been regularized along with colleagues. Further, as per the
notification issued under the said B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997,
the candidates who were working as Village Electricity Workers
continuously as on the date of the notification have applied for the
post of contract Junior Lineman, and those candidates fulfilling the
conditions envisaged in B.P.Ms.No.36 had been selected as contract
Junior Linemen, whereas, petitioner, who secured the I.T.I.
qualification, never rendered his services continuously, remained
absent to duty in the year 2002, did not fulfill the conditions
prescribed in B.P.Ms.No.36, and had only approached the authorities
after the withdrawal of the said B.P.Ms.No.36. Therefore, the
petitioner is not eligible for regularization of his services.
8. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not directly
engaged by the Corporation, but was rendering his services under the
control of the Village Sarpanch. Further, the understanding of the
petitioner that the services of the candidates who worked
continuously for more than one year have been regularized is also
7
PK, J
W.P.No.35680 of 2012
incorrect. It is submitted that the services of a candidate will be
regularized after completion of a continuous period of one year, as per
the regulations of the organization, if such candidates has been
appointed against a regular post. However, in the case of the
petitioner, he has been engaged as a Contract Labour, but not as a
regular employee. Hence, his services cannot be regularized and the
respondents are justified in issuing the impugned rejection order
dated 16.10.2012. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ
petition.
9. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions/contentions
urged by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused
the material on record.
10. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as a Village Electricity
Worker in 1989 and after working as such until 1997, his services
were discontinued. Subsequently, his services were once again re-
engaged during March 2002, which have been orally terminated on
01.08.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Labour Court,
challenging his termination, and filed in I.D.No.31 of 2005, which was
allowed vide award dated 24.10.2006, setting aside the oral
termination, and the respondents were directed to reinstate the
8
PK, J
W.P.No.35680 of 2012
petitioner into service with continuity of service, however, without
back wages and attendant benefits. The relevant portion of the said
award is extracted hereunder:
“5) POINT : Petitioner as WW1 deposed that he joined
the respondent as VEW on 19-9-1989 and worked continuously till
May, 1995. Petitioner further deposed that he again joined in
February, 2002 and he attended for interview conducted by the
respondent and even there after worked continuously as VEW till
August, 2002 when he was removed. He deposed that he was
appointed as VEW by Sarpanch of Nutunkal Mandal and sarpanch
used to pay wages to the petitioner. MW1 also deposed that the
department used to pay half of the salary and remaining half
sarpanch used to pay to the petitioner. WW1 also deposed that
assistant engineer used to pay Rs.150/- per month. It is
suggested to WW1 that President used to pay rs.150/- per month
and in addition APSEB used to pay Rs.150/- per month i.e. total
amount of Rs.300/-. Even as can be understood from the stand
taken by the respondent, petitioner was paid salary by sarpanch
and the department, and the petitioner worked as VEW as
workman of respondent only even though his services were
rendered in the village. Ex.W1 is appointment order given by the
Divisional Engineer, Electrical of the respondent and MW1
admitted the said fact. Ex.W1 was not issued by the sarpanch
concerned. There was direction to the sarpanch to issued
appointment order separately as VEW. So it can be believed that
petitioner worked as VEW under the control of the respondent only
and under the supervision of the department even though he
worked under the limits of gram panchayat. Salary was paid by
the department and sarpanch equally. Department paid grant in
aid for payment of salary as can be seen from Ex. W1. Petitioner
joined on 19-9-89 as per joining report in Ex. W2. Petitioner gave
representation as in Ex.W4 for regularization for service. WW1
deposed that he worked continuously without any break and that
he was removed in August, 2002 without any notice or payment of
retrenchment compensation. MW1 also deposed that petitioner
was not given any notice nor paid compensation. MW1 deposed
that petitioner worked as VEW continuously from 1989 to 1997.
From the evidence on record and documentary evidence produced
on behalf of petitioner, it can be believed that petitioner worked
continuously for more than 240 days prior to termination in
August, 2002. Respondent has not filed any documents to
contradict the evidence of petitioner. There is no material to show
that petitioner was absent continuously while working as VEW.
No notice was issued to that extent by the sarpanch or the
department. So it is believed that petitioner continuously worked
9
PK, J
W.P.No.35680 of 2012
for more than 240 days in one year preceeding the date of
termination. Admittedly respondent has not issued any notice
prior to termination nor paid retrenchment compensation as
required U/s. 25-F of I.D. Act. The said provision is violated by
the respondent before terminating the petitioner from service.
It is held in decision reported in 1996 LLR 488 (Good Year
India Ltd., vs. Vijay Kumar and another) ‘that when petitioner
worked for more than 240 days in calendar year and his services
were terminated amounting to retrenchment and so it shall be set
aside.’ The same principle was laid down in decision reported in
1998 LLR 576 (T. Yadamma vs. National Remote Sensing Agency,
Hyderabad and other ). It is held that even though the workman
has worked as casual workman yet the termination amounts to
illegal retrenchment contravening Sec. 25-F of I.D Act.
By following the principles in the above decision, this Court
has no hesitation to hold that retrenchment of petitioner by
respondent is illegal being in contravention to the mandatory
provisions of Sec. 25 – F of I.D. Act. So termination of the
petitioner amounting to retrenchment is held as invalid and
respondent shall reinstate the petitioner as village electricity
worked on daily wages by paying SSR rates with continuity of
service but without back wages and attendant benefits. Point is
answered accordingly.
In the result, award is passed and removed order dt.1-8-
2002 amounting to retrenchment is set aside and respondent shall
reinstate the petitioner as village electricity worker with continuity
of service but without back wages and attendant benefits. Award
shall be implemented after expiry of one month from the date of its
publication U/s.17 – A of the I.D. Act.”
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Admittedly, the aforesaid award had attained finality and in
compliance with the said award, the respondents have also reinstated
the petitioner on 30.06.2008. Now the main dispute in the present
writ petition pertains to the denial of regularization of the services of
the petitioner.
10
PK, J
W.P.No.35680 of 2012
12. As can be seen from the impugned order dated 16.10.2012 and
as stated by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, the
primary ground for rejection of the request of the petitioner for
regularization of his services is that he did not render a continuous
service. However, it is to be noted that the Labour Court, while
allowing I.D.No.31 of 2005, categorically observed that the petitioner
had worked continuously for more than 240 days prior to his
termination, and also granted continuity of service. Hence, it can be
construed that the stand taken by the respondents is directly
contrary to the award of the Labour Court dated 24.10.2006. As
such, the respondents are estopped from taking such plea to deny
regularization of the services of the petitioner. Further, when the
petitioner was reinstated with continuity of service, he was deemed to
have been in service throughout the said period.
13. Further, according to the respondents, the second ground for
rejection of the petitioner’s claim is that he was not on the muster
rolls as on the date of the notification. However, it is pertinent to note
that the petitioner’s absence was not voluntary but was a
consequence of the oral termination order issued by the respondents
themselves. As such, the stand taken by the respondents that the
petitioner was absent to his duties during the relevant point of time
11
PK, J
W.P.No.35680 of 2012
for denial of the benefit of regularization, cannot be countenanced.
Further, the petitioner contends that he was treated discriminatorily,
as the services of his juniors were regularized in 2005, while he was
denied the similar benefit. According to the petitioner, the services of
his colleagues, viz., Mr. M. Venkat Reddy, Mr. Ch. Ratna Sekhar and
Mr. P. Lakshmaiah, have been regularized in the year 2005, and thus,
he claims a similar benefit. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that
a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad, in M.V. Chalapathi (supra), observed the
need and importance of fair treatment of the employees for
consideration of regularization of their services. The relevant portion
of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
“3. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the
respondents – Corporation themselves having conceded before this
Court in Writ Petition No.26111 of 1998 with respect to similarly
situated persons for regularisation of their services from the date
of their initial appointment, cannot be permitted to take a different
stand and deny the claim of the appellants herein who are
similarly placed like the petitioners in WP No.26111 of 1998.
4. The respondent – Corporation, being an ideal employer, and
in the interest of industrial peace and to avoid frustration and
heart-burning among the co-workers, cannot take the stand of
pick and choose for regularisation of services of similarly situated
workmen. With respect to persons appointed in 1984 and who
were given regularisation with effect from 1986 by the Corporation
were ordered to be given regularsation in 1998 with effect from the
date of their initial appointment in Writ Petition No.26111 of 1998
and in the said WP there was no opposition by the Corporation for
giving such relief, but, in the case of petitioners herein, their claim
for regularisation was opposed on the hyper-technical ground of
‘laches’. Ground of ‘laches’ is not an absolute bar. Court is
12
PK, J
W.P.No.35680 of 2012expected to condone the same in order to do justice and put the
persons on the same pedestal as similarly situated persons are
being treated by the Corporation. The Corporation, on their own
act and conduct, having granted relief to some persons similarly
situated, cannot take a different stand and deny the benefit of
regularisation of services to the appellants on the ground of
approaching this Court belatedly.
5. In the light of the observations made above, the order of the
learned single Judge is set aside. The appeal is accepted. The
respondents are directed to consider the cases of the appellants for
regularisation of their services notionally with effect from the date
they were entitled to. It is made clear that the appellants shall be
given the same benefits which have been granted by the
respondents in respect of similarly situated persons. There shall
be no order as to costs.”
14. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioner is fully eligible for
regularization of his services on par with his colleagues, whose
services were regularized in the year 2005. Therefore, the impugned
rejection order dated 16.10.2012 is unsustainable in the eye of law,
and is therefore, liable to be set aside.
15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the
impugned order vide Lr.No.DE/OP/SRPT/JAO/ADM/D.No.2195/12
dated 16.10.2012 issued by respondent No.3, and the respondents
are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for regularization
of his services on par with his juniors, whose services were
regularized w.e.f., 10.02.2005, along with all consequential benefits,
and pass appropriate orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law,
13
PK, J
W.P.No.35680 of 2012
as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (06)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition,
shall stand closed. No costs.
_________________________________
JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
Date: 23.07.2025.
GSP