THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.18370 OF 2013 AND BATCH WRIT PETITION NO.18370 OF 2013 Between:- V.Muthu And …Petitioner Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
WRIT PETITION NO.25582 OF 2013 Between:-
Smt.Kumba Seethamma And …Respondents.
…Petitioner Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad and others.
WRIT PETITION NO.26346 OF 2014 Between:- Gandla Kashiram And …Respondents.
…Petitioner Government of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
WRIT PETITION NO.16068 OF 2013 Between:- D.Krishna And …Respondents.
…Petitioner The Andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation Limited, Rep.by its Managing Director, Hyderabad and another.
…Respondents.
WRIT PETITION NO.18364 OF 2013 Between:-
Boddu Koteswara Rao And …Petitioner Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
WRIT PETITION NO.21262 OF 2013 Between:- P.Parvathi And …Respondents.
…Petitioner Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
WRIT PETITION NO.30906 OF 2013 Between:- D.Satyavathi And …Respondents.
…Petitioner Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad and others.
WRIT PETITION NO.36128 OF 2013 Between:- Smt.Pagadala Lakshmi And …Respondents.
…Petitioner Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
WRIT PETITION NO.39068 OF 2013 Between:- N.Kamalamma And …Respondents.
…Petitioner Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
WRIT PETITION NO.174 OF 2014 Between:- U.Ramakrishna And …Respondents.
…Petitioner Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
…Respondents.
WRIT PETITION NO.1645 OF 2014 Between:- B.S.Savithri And …Petitioner Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
WRIT PETITION NO.2609 OF 2014 Between:- Boggula Laxmi And …Respondents.
…Petitioner Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
WRIT PETITION NO.3317 OF 2014 Between:- I.Peddulu And …Respondents.
…Petitioner Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
…Respondents.
WRIT PETITION NO.5033 OF 2014 Between:- SK.Peerusahib And …Petitioner Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad and others.
WRIT PETITION NO.16203 OF 2014 Between:-
Smt.Karpurapu Mahalakshmi And …Respondents.
…Petitioner Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
…Respondents.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.18370 OF 2013 AND BATCH COMMON ORDER:
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.
Since common questions of fact and law arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they are disposed of by this common order.
These writ petitions are filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in directing the petitioners to retire at the age of 58 years as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners and continue them in service until they attain the age of 60 years.
The petitioners were engaged by the respondent- Bewerages Corporation, on daily wage basis. The petitioners made several representations for regularization of their services on par with regular employees. While so, the respondent-Corporation gave the impugned notice to the petitioners directing them to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation.
Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is stated that the permanent employees are governed by the A.P.Beverages Corporation Limited Service Regulations-2009 and the unskilled workers are governed by the Certified Standing Orders, which were certified by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and according to the said Standing Orders, the age of superannuation is 58 years. It is further stated that proposals have been submitted by the respondent- Corporation to the Government for sanction of 494 Supernumerary posts for regularization of 493 unskilled workers vide letter dated 29.10.2007, which was rejected by the Government through its letter dated 9.11.2011. It is also stated in the counter that fundamental rules of the Government of Andhra Pradesh apply only to the State Government employees and not in case of State Public Sector undertakings. The unskilled workers were engaged in 1986 during the commencement of Arrack Packing Operations for attending to carry packed arrack crates in the depot. Later, when the Corporation took over IMFL trading operations, these workers used to attend to shifting work of liquor stock within the depot, unloading/loading of stocks in the absence of hamalis, affixing of EALs on imported stocks. Further, the recorded age of the workers is also not based on authentic certificates. According to the respondents, the loading and unloading, re-adjustment of stocks in the godowns involve heavy handling and allowing the petitioners to work beyond the age of 58 years is unsafe.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as per Rule 59 of the Fundamental Rules, every workman whether superior or last grade service shall ordinarily be retained in service upto the age of 60 years. He further submits that the provisions of A.P.Public Employment (Reagulation of Superannuation) Act, 1984, states that the workmen like the petitioners can continue till 60 years and that the petitioners may be extended the same benefit.
Admittedly, the petitioners have reached nearly the age of 58 years and their services have not been regularized. Initially, the petitioners were engaged as casual workers and their status is the same as of now. It is appropriate to refer Rule (d) of the Certified Standing Orders, which reads as under:
“Every worker shall retire at the age of 58 years. Provided that the Board may, in the interests of the Corporation, extend the period of service of a worker, but in no case such extension shall be beyond the age of 60 years. Provided further that in the case of a worker who has attained the age of 58 years, his continuance in service shall be subject to his physically and mentally alert by a qualified medical practitioner acceptable to the Corporation, initially and also after each year of his extended service.”
As per the aforesaid Rule, in the interest of the Corporation, it can extend the age of superannuation upto 60 years, but the petitioners cannot claim 60 years as a matter of right. The provisions of A.P.Public Employment (Regulation of Superannuation) Act, 1984 have no application to the petitioners, who are casual workers.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there is enough work for the petitioners in the respondent-Corporation and they may be continued till the age of 60 years without employing any other workers in the place of petitioners on temporary basis.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondent-Corporation is not contemplating to take up any regular appointments as of now.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right that they can continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. However, the petitioners are working since long time and the respondent-Corporation may consider their cases for continuing them up to the age of 60 years subject to the work load in the Corporation and suitability of the petitioners to work in such posts beyond the age of 58 years.
The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in these Writ Petitions shall stand dismissed.
R. KANTHA RAO,J
Date: 12-09-2014
Shr.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.18370 OF 2013 AND BATCH Date: 12-09-2014 Shr.