V.Baby Rani v. The Telangana State

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.11472 of 2019 ORDER:

This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both the parties.

This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: ".........Writ of Mandamus to declare that the service of the petitioner has to be counted/regularized or for appointment as Supervisor Grade-I/CDPO (equivalent to Instructor/ Coordinator) from the date of petitioner's appointment as Instructor/Coordinator (discharging the duties as Principal) in Anganwadi Training Centre Durga Bai Mahila Sishu Vikasa Kendra (DMSVK), Telangana State Women Cooperative Development Corporation (TSWCDC) and consequently direct the respondents to count/consider/regularize the service of the petitioner as Supervisor GradeI/CDPO from the date of the petitioner's appointment as Instructor/Coordinator (discharging the duties as Principal) with all consequential benefits including pay and allowances by holding the action of respondents in not regularizing the service of petitioner as Supervisor Grade-I/CDPO as illegal, unjust, unreasonable, unfair, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India ......."

Heard Sri M.Venkata Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing counsel for the 3rd respondent.

It has been contended by the petitioner that she was appointed as Instructor/Coordinator in the Anganwadi Training Centre, Durga Bai Mahila Sishu Vikasa Kendram (DMSVK) and she has been discharging her duties to the satisfaction of

everyone concerned. The petitioner further contends that though petitioner has rendered more than 27 years of service, the respondents are not regularizing her services. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Apex Court in State of Karnataka and Ors vs. Umadevi1 has held that employees who are working on daily wage basis and have completed more than 10 years of service are entitled for regularization of their services and employer must frame a scheme accordingly for regularization of their services. Learned counsel further contends that petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondents on 06.03.2017 requesting them to regularize her services in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Umadevi's case (supra).

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Umadevi's case (supra).

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the case of the petitioner would be considered in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Umadevi's case (cited supra), in accordance with law. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, is of the considered view that this Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the 1 2006 (4) SCC (1)

petitioner on 06.03.2017 and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 12.06.2019 dv