Smt. Bhagyamma, v. The State Of Telangana,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO W.P.No.31420 of 2016

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in Last Grade Service.

The petitioner claims that she was engaged in the 2nd respondent school for cleaning the rice and other miscellaneous works and had worked for more than ten years. On an earlier occasion, when she filed W.P.No.31880 of 1997, this Court disposed of the same by an order dated 1.10.2015 giving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.112, Finance and Planning Department, dated 23.07.1997. After disposal of the said writ petition as aforesaid, the petitioner submitted a representation on 18.12.2015 to the respondents and on considering the same, the Secretary of the 2nd respondent school passed the impugned order on 5.2.2016 rejecting her request for regularization and relevant portion of the said order reads as under:

"After examination of the representation of the petitioner, she is hereby informed that she was engaged for cleaning the rice in TSR School (B), Beechupally, Mahabubnagar District on stop gap arrangement and she had been paid on voucher payment only. She has neither appointed in a sanctioned post. As per the G.O.No.112, those who were appointed prior to 25.11.1993 on part time basis in

a sanctioned post, they may only be considered for regularization. Therefore, the petitioner is hereby informed that the orders dated 1.10.2015 of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.31880 of 1997 has not been complied, since the petitioner is not eligible for regularization in terms of G.O.(P) No.112, dated 23.7.1997"

Challenging the said order, the present writ petition is filed. A reading of the impugned order clearly shows that the petitioner was appointed for cleaning rice and other miscellaneous works on stop gap arrangement and not in a sanctioned post or on part time basis and wages were paid on voucher basis. Hence, her case for regularization was not considered. No material is placed on record by the petitioner contradicting the said observation made in the impugned order.

In those circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO 20th September, 2016 rkk