APHC010310852002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 22182/2002 Between: 1. K VENUGOPAL RAO, S/O. HANUMANTHA RAO MESSENGER, G.M.CHAMBER, DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE G M DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD, DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the resposndents to regularise the services of the petitioner from the date on which his juniors were regularised with continuity of service and to extend all consequential benefits by declaring the action of the respondent in regularising his services 2 as illegal arbitrary, violation of articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2002(WPMP 27819 OF 2002 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner in the time scale of pay pending disposal of W.P., and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2003(WVMP 3911 OF 2003 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in WPMP.No.27819/2002 in WP.No.22182/2002 dt 31-12-2002 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2003(WPMP 148258 OF 2003 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 101800 OF 2015 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C SRINIVASA BABA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V UMA DEVI 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 22182/2002 ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking following relief: “….to issue appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date on which his juniors were regularized with continuity of service and to extend all consequential benefits by declaring the action of the respondent in regularizing his services as illegal arbitrary violation of articles 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Peon-cum-Night Watchman by the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Vizianagaram on 30.05.1986, on a daily wage basis. Later, his services were abruptly terminated on 04.04.1987 without assigning any reasons, which drove him to prefer I.D.No.323 of 1989. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Vizianagaram, by order dated 13.08.1992, allowed the said ID and directed the Bank to reinstate the petitioner into service with back wages and further, in case there existed any vacancies, to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption. The said award came to be unsuccessfully challenged by the Bank in W.P.No.14091 of 1994 and eventually, the petitioner has been reinstated into service. Since his request for regularization has not been considered despite there being a recommendation made along with seven 4 others and after submitting various representations, petitioner preferred the present writ petition. After filing the writ petition, in pursuance to the interim orders, the petitioner was extended the benefit of limited time scale of pay. 3. Heard Sri C. Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. V. Uma Devi, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner has been working in respondent-Bank from 30.05.1986, as there existed clear vacancies, his case ought to have been considered for regularization and the factum of existence of vacancies has not been denied or disputed by the Bank. He further contended that some of the employees, who are either juniors or colleagues to the petitioner, have been recommended for regularization; therefore, case of the petitioner also requires to be considered on par with them. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dharam Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another1. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, while drawing the attention of this Court to Para Nos.11 & 12 of the counter affidavit, submits that none of the juniors to petitioner 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 5 have been considered for regularization, as alleged by petitioner in the writ petition and further that no employee has been appointed after petitioner’s appointment and even three persons who were on consolidated wages are being paid regular scale of pay. Though, three members were recommended for regularization, the same is still awaiting approval and clearance from the Commissioner, Corporation; therefore, petitioner cannot claim any right for regularization in the absence of clear vacancies. 6. Perused the record and considered rival submissions. 7. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has been discharging duties as Peon-cum-Night Watchman since the date of his appointment i.e., on 30.05.1986, except for the termination period, even such period has been regularized by virtue of the order passed by the Tribunal in I.D.No.323 of 1989. There is some amount of ambiguity regarding the existence of vacancies. However, the Bank, in its counter affidavit, has clearly stated that three persons have been recommended for regularization, which is awaiting the approval of Commissioner, Corporation. The same itself would be evident that there existed vacancies. Since the petitioner also put in considerable length of service and is now almost at the verge of retirement, in case there existed clear 6 vacancies, he is entitled to be considered for regularization, following the ratio rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment referred supra. 8. In view of the same, this Court deems it appropriate to permit the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the respondent-Bank claiming for regularization of his services. On such representation being made, the respondent-Bank is directed to consider the same on par with the three employees whose cases are already recommended for regularization and are awaiting approval of Commissioner, Corporation, subject to applicable rules and regulation on regularization. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 30.10.2025 ANS 7 90 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 22182/2002 Date: 30.10.2025 ANS