(Prayer: 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 topleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned notice vide proceedings No.RC.No.A1/241/TRICOR/2022-23, dated 15.12.2022, issued by the Respondent No.4 dispensing with the services of the petitioner from 16.12.2022 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and amounts to circumventing the orders of this Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.8859 of 2015 and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Sweeper cum Attender in 4th respondent corporation by suspending the notice vide proceedings No. RC. No.A1/241/TRICOR/2022-23, dated 15.12.2022, forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass)

1. The Writ Petition No.41665 of 2022 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner for the following relief:

                  “..to declare the impugned notice vide proceedings No.RC.No.A1/241/TRICOR/2022-23, dated 15.12.2022, issued by the Respondent No.4 dispensing with the services of the petitioner from 16.12.2022 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and amounts to circumventing the orders of this Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.8859 of 2015 and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Sweeper-cum- Attender in 4th respondent corporation by setting aside the notice vide proceedings No.RC.No.A1/241/TRICOR/2022-23, dated 15.12.2022, forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass…”

Brief facts of the case:

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner succinctly is that the petitioner was joined as Sweeper in the office of the 4th respondent in the year 1989 on monthly wage of Rs.50/- initially and the same was enhanced from time to time. Thereafter the 4th respondent issued proceedings in R.C.No.TR/A1/396/04, dated -07-2004 by sanctioning the pay fixation attached to the Last Grade Service as the petitioner continuously working for more than 10 years. In fact, the 4th respondent has been paying petitioner’s provident fund contribution from the year 1992 onwards. Learned counsel submits that at the time of absorbing her services at the Last Grade Service, the 4th respondent also absorbed the services of one Sri K.T. Muthu Kumar in the post of Junior Inspector / Junior Assistant while sanctioning the pay attached to the said post. As per the said proceedings the petitioner is also entitled to draw salary attached to the post of Last Grade Service w.e.f., August, 2004. But the petitioner was not paid the salary attached to the Last Grade Service but a meager amount of Rs.6,700/- only per month was being paid to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8859/2015 and this Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass interim orders by sanctioning all increments attached to the Last Grade Service.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the claim of the petitioner is similar to one Sri K.T. Muthu Kumar, who is joined along with the petitioner but services of Sri K.T. Muthu Kumar was absorbed as Junior Assistant and sanctioned pay attached to the said post but the said benefit was not conferred to the petitioner even though she is entitled to draw the salary attached to the Last Grade Service w.e.f. August, 2004. Even though the petitioner submitted representations and requested for regularization as well as payment of salary attached to the Last Grade Service on par with Sri K.T. Muthu Kumar, the respondents did not consider the same but being paid a meager amount of Rs.6,700/- per month. He further asserted that having no other option the petitioner preferred W.P.No.8859/2015 on the file of this Hon’ble Court seeking for sanction of increments and pay fixation including revision of pay scales from the year 1999 to 2010 and pay arrears thereon, wherein this Hon’ble Court after hearing both sides allowed the W.P.No.8859/2015 directing the respondents to sanction increments from time to time and also pay fixation in RPS-1999 and RPS-2000 and RPS-2010 and extend all the monitory benefits with arrears within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. He further argued that without implementing the order of this Court, the Corporation preferred Writ Appeal No.342/2022 challenging the orders dated 06.12.2021 in W.P.No.8859/2015 wherein a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court disposed of the said writ appeal by observing and modifying the order of learned Single Judge and declared that the petitioner is entitled to the same benefits as have been paying to K.T. Muthu Kumar by way of proceedings dated 26.05.2017 and also directed to issue same proceedings in favour of the writ petitioner within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

4. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that even though this Hon’ble Court clearly and categorically directed the respondents to confer all the benefits not only service benefits but also all other payment benefits on par with Sri K.T. Muthu Kumar, whose services were regularized and who has been paying salaries on par with post attached to the Junior Assistant. As such, the petitioner is also entitled to the payment of salary to the post attached to the Last Grade Service. Even after lapse of four (04) months, the respondents did not implement the orders passed in the writ appeal. Hence the learned counsel for the petitioner preferred contempt petition in C.C.No.5043 of 2022 before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court for non-implementation o the orders dated 07.07.2022 in W.A.No.342/2022 and same is pending consideration. While so, the petitioner was issued proceedings in R.c.No.A1/241/TRICOR/2022-23, dated 15.12.2022 directing the petitioner not to attend the office from 16.12.2022 by observing that there is no sanctioned post of Sweeper at the 4th respondent Corporation. He also argued that while considering the orders of this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No.8859/2015, dated 06.12.2021as well as Writ Appeal No.342/2022, dated 07.07.2022, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to grant interim direction on 26.12.2022 suspending the impugned proceedings dated 15.12.2022 and specifically directed the respondents to continue the services of the petitioner. But even after receipt of interim order dated 26.12.2022 of this Court, the respondents neither allowed the petitioner to continue her services nor paid the salaries by which, deliberately and intentionally flouted the orders o this Hon’ble Court. He further submits that having no other option, the petitioner also preferred contempt petition in C.C.No.745/2023 on the file o this Hon’ble Court which is pending consideration.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of judgments rendered by this Court in W.A.No.342/2022, dated 07.07.2022, the petitioner herein is entitled for regularization and payment of salaries on par with K.T. Muthu Kumar. The said judgment of this Court rendered in W.A.No.342/2022 was became final. Therefore, the respondents neither dodge nor escape from the implementation of the orders of this Court. Having suffered orders of this Court and issuing impugned proceedings terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that there is no sanctioned post is nothing but the respondents are trying to circumvent the orders of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh & others vs. State of U.P and Another(2025 insc 998).

6. Respondent No.2 filed counter contending as under:

                  “12. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent having come to notice that the petitioner herein while working in the office of DTWO, Chittoor, suppressed the fact that she was also working in another Government office and therefore conducted an enquiry and found that the petitioner herein also worked as Sweeper in the Office of District Economics and Statistics Office, Chittoor till October, 2018 and drawn wages @ Rs.790/- per month from July, 2011 to August, 2013 @ Rs.1,623/- per month from September, 2013 to November, 2017 and @ Rs.4,000/- per month from December, 2017 to October, 2018 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.193, Finance (HR-III) Dept. dated 07.10.2016 and G.O.Ms.No.57, Finance (Budget-1) Dept. dated 07.04.2017, which details are reported by the Chief Planning Officer, Chittoor vide Lr.Rc.No.10/SA2/2021, dated 17.08.2023.

                  13. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner herein worked as part time sweeper in two offices viz., 1) Office of the District Tribal Welfare Officer, Chittoor, 2) Office of the Chief Planning Officer Chittoor. She has claimed remuneration for the work done as part time sweeper in both the offices. In the office of Chief Planning Officer, Chittoor, she claimed remuneration from 2011 to 2018. Apart from that she also claimed full time contingent salary in the office of the District Tribal Welfare Officer, Chittoor for the period from 2005 to 2017 on par with Sri K.T. Muthu Kumar as full time Contingent worker in the office of the District Tribal Welfare Officer, Chittoor by virtue of orders of the Hon’ble High Court. At this juncture a review petition has been filed before Hon’ble High Court vide IASR No.86848/2023 on 21.09.2023 bringing the facts about the fraud committed by the petitioner.

                  Apart from that the petitioner submitted fake transfer certificate which was verified and stated by the Head Master of the School that the petitioner did not study in this school and confirmed by the District Educational Officer, Chittoor. Further, the petitioner claimed full time contingent salary on par with Sri K.T. Muthu Kumar who is working as full-time contingent worker in the office of the District Tribal Welfare Officer, Chittoor is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, it is prayed this Hon’ble Court to amend the orders of the WA No.342/2022 issued by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court.

7. Learned counsel for respondents submits that while considering the services of the petitioner, the respondents conducted a detailed enquiry in respect of services of the petitioner, wherein it is found by the respondents that the petitioner suppressed the fact that she was working in another Government Office and also drawn wages and a report was called for by the Chief Planning Officer, Chittoor, dated 17.08.2023 in which she was worked simultaneously in another department from 2011 to 2018. Therefore on perusal of the enquiry report it is proved that the petitioner herein worked in two different offices at the same time but now seeking regularization in respect of the respondent Corporation. It is also found that the leave certificate submitted by the petitioner as if she studied 8th class which was also not genuine and fabricated one. Therefore, there are suppression of material facts by the petitioner and praying for regularization as well as Revised Pay Scale on par with other person i.e., Sri K.T. Muthu Kumar is contrary to law and she is not entitled for such reliefs having suppressed the material facts and played fraud against the respondent while submitting the documents proof on her eligibility. Moreover at persent there is no office of the 4th respondent at Chittoor to regularize the services of the petitioner and there is no sanctioned post to address the claim of the petitioner and comply with the orders of this Hon’ble Court.

8. He further submits that immediately after passing of interim direction by this Hon’ble Court dated 26.12.2022 filed vacate stay petition seeking to vacate the interim orders and same is pending for consideration before this Hon’ble Court. Learned Government Pleader also reiterates that in compliance of the orders of this Court, the petitioner was paid all the arrears of salary in two spells i.e., Rs.7,98,449/- on 14.11.2022 and Rs.70,620/- on 15.12.2022.

9. Heard both the counsel and perused the material placed on record.

10. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner herein was engaged as part time contingent worker as Sweeper w.e.f 01.01.1992 and continued as Sweeper till 15.12.2022. In fact the petitioner has been paying salaries @ minimum wages i.e., Rs.6,800/- per month for all these years without there being any break. It is further observed that the 2nd respondent Corporation is a State owned Corporation to achieve an object to render financial services/assistance for betterment of the Scheduled Tribe Community not only in customary segments but also in commercial field within the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the source of funds and finances for its administration would be borne by the 1st respondent herein. The contention of learned counsel for respondents is that the services of the petitioner cannot be regularized for the reason that there is no sanctioned post of Sweeper at 4th respondent office and more so, the office itself was closed, as such the petitioner is not entitled for regularization on par with one Sri K.T. Muthu Kumar whose services were already regularized in the year 2017 itself, the said plea lacks merits and is contrary to the settled proposition of law and also the ratio rendered by this Hon’ble Court at the instance of the petitioner herein. As such, the contention of the learned Government Pleader for respondents is liable to be rejected in view of the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.8859/2015 and W.A.No.342 of 2022 as extracted hereunder:

                  “ Orders dated 06.12.2021 in W.P.No.8859 of 2015:

                  In view of the same, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to sanction increments to the petitioner from time to time and also pay fixation in RPS-1999 and RPS-2000 and RPS-2010 and extend the monetary benefits along with arrears within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

                  Orders dated 07.07.2022 in W.A.No.342 of 2022:

                  In view of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader that separate proceedings have been issued to Muthu Kumar in the year 2017 granting monetary benefits along with the benefit of Revised Pay Scales, we modify the order of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the writ petitioner (respondent herein) is entitled to the same benefits as have been made admissible to Muthu Kumar by way of proceedings dated 26.05.2017. The appellants shall issue proceedings in favour of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) granting similar benefits as have been granted to Muthu Kumar, within a period of three weeks from today.

11. On perusal of the judgments as stated supra, the respondents were clearly and categorically directed to absorb the services of the petitioner on par with one K.T. Muthu Kumar and also directed to pay the salaries on par with K.T. Muthu Kumar since 2017. It seems that the respondent implemented one part of the orders i.e., regarding the arrears of payment of salaries from 2017 to 2022 but not absorbed the services of the petitioner. On the other hand terminated the services of the petitioner from 16.12.2022 on the ground that there is no sanctioned post, is nothing but circumventing the orders of this Court on the part of the respondents. It is a fact that a contempt case is pending before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court for non-implementation of the orders of this Court. Pending contempt petition terminating the services of the petitioner is nothing but a deliberate attempt made by the respondents flouting the orders of the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A.No.342/2022. The other contention of learned counsel for respondents that since the petitioner suppressed the material facts, and in view of self-styled enquiry said to have been conducted by them alleging that the petitioner has been worked not only in the 2nd respondent – Corporation but also some other Government Organization i.e., Chief Planning Officer, Chittoor cannot be taken into  consideration since the said enquiry was not conducted after providing opportunity to the petitioner and same was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. Even assuming that the petitioner has been worked with the alleged office for a short period of six or seven years, it cannot be blamed since the respondents extracted the services of the petitioner decades together by paying meager amounts. The action of the respondents itself forced the petitioner to render services with some other department or organization for getting some more income to eke out her livelihood and for her family needs. Therefore, the same cannot be found fault with the petitioner and respondents cannot be allowed to contend that the petitioner has been suppressed the material facts.

12. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that having admitted and extracted the services of the petitioner since 1992 to 2022 continuously without there being any break, the petitioner is entitled not only for regularization and also all other consequential monitory benefits on par with Sri K.T. Muthu Kumar from the year 2005 to 2017. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dharam Singh & others vs. Sate of U.P and another (Supra 1) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:

                  “3. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the dismissal of the writ petition on the premise that the appellants were engaged on daily-wage basis and that there were no rules in the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission1 (Respondent No.2 herein) for regularization. Moreover, the Court observed that no vacancies existed against which the appellants could be considered.

                  4.1. The appellants were engaged by the Commission between 1989 and 1992. Appellant Nos. 1 to 5 served as Class-IV employees (Peon/attendant duties), and 1 In short, “the Commission” Appellant No. 6 served as Driver (Class-III). They were paid as daily wagers and, with effect from 08.04.1997, received consolidated monthly amounts (₹1,500 for Class-IV; ₹2,000 for Driver), while discharging ministerial and support functions during regular office hours. The Commission, established under the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, processes large recruitment cycles for teachers and principals and requires ministerial support for scrutiny of applications, dispatch, and connected administrative work.

                  4.2. On 24.10.1991, the Commission resolved to create fourteen posts in Class-III and Class-IV and sought sanction from the State Government 2. On 27.12.1997, the State sought particulars of daily-wage hands and their service details. On 11.02.1998, the Commission furnished a list of fourteen daily wagers which included the present appellants.

                  4.3. On 16.10.1999, the Commission reiterated its request, seeking sanction of two posts of Driver and ten posts for Peon/Mali/Chowkidar, adverted to administrative exigencies, and referred to earlier correspondence. By 2 In short, “the State” letter dated 11.11.1999, the State rejected the proposal citing financial constraints.

                  4.5. On 24.04.2002, the High Court directed the Commission to send a fresh recommendation for sanction of appropriate Group-C/Group-D posts and directed the State to take a fresh decision thereon. In the meantime, having regard to the appellants’ long engagement, the Commission was directed to pay them the minimum of the applicable pay scale.

                  19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions:

                  i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above.

                  ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment.

                  iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgement.

                  20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

13. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court as stated supra as well as judgment of this Hon’ble Court in W.A.No.342/2022, the petitioner shall entitle for regularization by setting aside the termination proceedings dated 15.12.2022 is valid and sustainable in view of the judgment rendered by this Court and having suffered the judgments and became final. The action of the respondents in issuing termination proceedings dated 15.12.2022 is nothing but circumventing the orders of this Court.

14. It is settled proposition of law that once the petitioner continued the services more than three decades, the right of the petitioner for absorption as regular employee cannot be denied on the ground of there is no sanctioned post and after extraction of services for a period more than 30 years is against the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dharam Singh & others vs. Sate of U.P and another (Supra 1) and also in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi((2006) 4 SCC 1).

15. Therefore, in view of the reasons stated above and in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on par with Sri K.T. Muthu Kumar in terms of the judgment in W.A.No.342 of 2022, dated 07.07.2022 within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.