logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1391 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Writ Petition No. 28127 of 2022
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Parties : K. Satyanarayana Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary, Guntur & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: G.V.V.S. Vara Prasad, Advocate. For the Respondent: GP for Services IV, Jagadish Kuamar Batchu, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 31-07-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing petitioner's services, as arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and provisions of I.D. Act and consequently direct the respondents to regularize petitioner's services either the post of Electrician or Plumber or in any other suitable post and direct the respondent to pay the arrears of salary with consequential and attendant benefits with interest @ 12percent p.a., grant costs of the proceedings.)

1. The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the service of the petitioner as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and, consequently, prayed to direct the respondents to regularize petitioner’s service, either to the post of Electrician or Plumber or in any other suitable post and direct the respondents to pay the arrears of salary with consequential and attendant benefits with interest 12% per annum and to grant costs.

2. The case of the petitioner inter alia is that he has been discharging his duties as Electrician-cum-Plumber for the last 21 years in the 5th respondent hospital and he is eligible to be appointed as an Electrician or as Plumber and the duties that discharged by the petitioner are equal to the duties of a regular employee and the petitioner was paid a paltry wage, and the action of the respondents are trying to replace the petitioner with another temporary employee, a temporary employee cannot be replaced by another temporary employee and the respondents cannot issue notification dated 06.08.2022 for filling up the post of electrician and plumber. The course action of the respondents is in violation of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. And it is further stated that the respondents have issued service certificates dated 27.11.2021 and 19.02.2022 and the two cheques dated 15.06.2022 for an amount of Rs.10,100/- and Rs.10,150/-, which establishes that petitioner worked with the 5th respondent. Therefore, petitioner pleads to direct the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner either as Electrician or Plumber in the respondents organisation.

3. The 5th respondent filed counter, denying all the writ affidavit contentions and stated that petitioner was engaged as Electrician-cum-Plumber for the period from 2001 to 2008 on salaried basis as outsourcing through a third party contractor duly authorised by DHCS and the petitioner was continued as Electrician-cum-Plumber from January 2009 to August 2013, thereafter he was absconded and the service certificate issued by the 5th respondent dated 27.11.2021 with reference to service rendered during Covid period under a special drive recruitment as MNO from 01.05.2021 to 13.10.2021 and the payments of HDS are done, cheque transactions only and ergo stated that the petitioner is neither regular employee nor an outsourcing employ or a person serving the Hospital and it is further stated the 5th respondent is not competent authority to appoint the petitioner.

4. Heard learned arguing counsel Ms.P.Prashamsha, for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for services-IV for respondents.

5. It is evident from the counter that the petitioner worked as Electrician-cum-Plumber from 2001 to August 2013 as MNO from 01.05.2021 to 13.10.2021 in the 5th respondent hospital on salaried basis. Thereafter, the petitioner was not there in the office of 5th respondent from August 2013 to May 2021 and his services were utilised in the Covid period from 01.05.2021 to 13.10.2021 and for the said period, the respondents have paid the remuneration (not salary) an amount of Rs.20,250/- (in words rupees twenty thousand two hundred and fifty). The principle that raised by the petitioner that a temporary employee cannot be replaced by another temporary employee is acceptable principle, whether the said principle is applicable to the petitioner must still be examined.

6. The petitioner was employed through 3rd party outsourcing agency in two separate spells, and he was again re-engaged from 01.05.2021 to 13.10.2021 during the covid pandemic. As the service of the petitioner was not against substantive vacancy and the petitioner was failed to prove that his service was terminated by the 5th respondent, which is necessary to invoke Sections 25-F and 25-G of the I.D. Act, and the petitioner has not filed any reply or rejoinder to deny the respondents’ contention that the petitioner was absconded from duty and he was re-engaged during the covid period from 01.05.2021 to 13.10.2021, for five months. This clearly establishes that the petitioner was not in continuity of service from August 2013 to claim regularisation.

7. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

8. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal