At, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO
For the Appearing Parties: D. Ramalinga Swamy, Advocates.
V.V.S. RAO, J.
(1) THE petitioner worked as NMR employee in the Irrigation Department, Bobbili Mandal, Vizianagaram District and completed five years of service. Therefore, he filed a Writ Petition No. 18852/97 praying for a direction to the respondents, namely the Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer, to regularise his services in the work charged establishment as
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
per G.O.Ms. No. 143 Irrigation (Ser. V) Department dated 16-3-1984 and also in accordance with G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated 22-4-1994. This Court by order dated 22-8-1997 disposed of that writ petition directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with two G. Os. mentioned herein above. When the same was not complied with, the petitioner approached this Court and filed Contempt Case No. 40/98, which was closed. The reason for closing the Contempt Case is that by the time the Contempt Case was taken up consideration by this Court, respondents passed the order in Memo No. 1824-M dated 31-10-1997. By the said memo, the third respondent informed the petitioner that he is not qualified in terms of above G. Os. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
(2) THE matter is called for admission. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation Department.
(3) THE learned Assistant Government Pleader, relying on G.O.Ms. No. 143 dated 16-3-1984, submits that the benefit under the said G.O. is given only to NMR workers. As the petitioner is not a NMR worker, he is not entitled for the benefit of G.O. It is further case of the respondent that the petitioner along with others was engaged as "hand receipt worker". The difference between a NMR worker and "hand receipt worker" is that a NMR worker is paid under proper acquittance by Departmental officials and "hand receipt worker" is paid by the Department through the Contractor, who is engaged for a particular work. The act of payment may be different, but the factum and the source of payment is the same namely Department pays for both the workers. Both types of workers attend to the same work. There cannot be any rationale for the purpose of G.O.Ms. No. 143 to distinguish a NMR worker and "hand receipt worker". This is so even if we assume that the petitioner is not a NMR worker.
(4) WHEN this Court disposed of WP No. 1 8852/97, the respondent did not take proper steps as to whether the benefits under G.O.Ms. No. 143 can be conferred on "hand receipt workers". Therefore, the question whether-"hand receipt workers" are entitled for the benefit of G. O. Ms. No. 143 is an issue to be adjudicated by the Court. However, as the respondent did not pursue the matter, it shall be taken as constructive res judicata and the point, therefore, is decided against the Department in that even "hand receipt workers" are entitled for regularisation under G.O.Ms, No. 143 dated 16-3-1984.
(5) IN the order passed by the third respondent on 31 -10-1987 except saying that the petitioner is not qualified in terms of G.O., it is not mentioned as to how he is not qualified. No doubt, when orders refusing regularisation or refusing appointment are passed, elaborate reasons much less reasons need not be recorded. There cannot be a general principle that whenever an appointment is denied, the appointing authority shall supply reasons. However, when the order of refusal for regularisation is challenged in this Court, it is the duty of the authorities to satisfy the Court as to how the citizens are disqualified. The attempt made by the Assistant Government Pleader though very much appreciated by this Court, this Court feels compelled not to be persuaded by the submissions made by the Assistant Government Pleader. As held above, even "hand receipt worker" is entitled for regularisation under G.O. treating him as NMR employee for the purpose of G.O. Ms. No. 143 dated 16-3-1984.
(6) FOR the above reasons, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders in the light of the observations made by this Court as above. No costs.