In a significant order addressing the rights of long-term temporary employees, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the state authorities to consider the regularization of a watchman who has been discharging the duties of an attender for over 19 years. The judgment reinforces the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in landmark cases, emphasizing that arbitrary denial of regularization violates constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Chitti Rambabu, a 43-year-old watchman employed at Sri Kanaka Durgammavari Devasthanam, Palacol, West Godavari District, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. He challenged the respondents' failure to regularize his services despite his continuous employment for nearly two decades. The petitioner had been discharging the duties of an attender, a post that typically qualifies for regularization under established legal principles.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was initially appointed as a watchman but has been performing the duties of an attender since his engagement.
- He has been in continuous service for over 19 years under the control of the respondents.
- The respondents, including the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Commissioner of Endowments, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, and the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam, failed to consider his claim for regularization.
- The petitioner relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including:
- Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) and Others (2006 (4) SCC 1)
- Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab and Others (2013 (14) SCC 65)
- Amarendra Kumar Mahapatra v. State of Orissa and Others (2014 (4) SCC 583)
- Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar (2015 (8) SCC 265)
- Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand and Others (2018 (8) SCC 238)
Procedural History
- Writ Petition No. 2513/2024 was filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Article 226 seeking a Writ of Mandamus.
- The petitioner sought:
- A declaration that the respondents' inaction was arbitrary, illegal, unjust, discriminative, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21.
- Regularization of his services with all consequential benefits.
- IA No. 1 of 2024 was filed under Section 151 CPC seeking directions for the respondents to extend the minimum time scale of pay attached to the post of attender.
- IA No. 1 of 2025 was filed seeking leave for Respondent No. 2 to file a counter-affidavit.
Relief Sought
The petitioner prayed for:
- A Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider his claim for regularization.
- Regularization of his services with all consequential benefits, including pay scales applicable to the post of attender.
- A direction to the respondents to comply with the Supreme Court judgments cited in the petition.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the court was whether the inaction of the respondents in failing to consider the petitioner's claim for regularization after 19 years of continuous service constitutes a violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, and whether such inaction can be challenged through a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner contended that his continuous service for 19 years entitled him to consideration for regularization under the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
- He argued that the respondents' failure to act was arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
- Reliance was placed on the judgments in Umadevi and subsequent cases, which held that long-term temporary employees cannot be denied regularization arbitrarily.
- The petitioner further argued that the respondents' inaction deprived him of equal opportunity and fair treatment, which is a fundamental right under Article 21.
For the Respondents
- The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader for Services II, did not file a counter-affidavit despite the opportunity granted through IA No. 1 of 2025.
- No substantive arguments were presented on behalf of the respondents during the hearing.
The Court's Analysis
The court observed that the petitioner had been working under the respondents' control for over 19 years, discharging the duties of an attender. The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice and fairness require that such long-term employees be given due consideration for regularization, in line with the Supreme Court's judgments in Umadevi and other cited cases.
"The petitioner has been in continuous service for more than 19 years. The respondents are duty-bound to consider his case for regularization in accordance with the law and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court."
The court noted that the failure to consider the petitioner's claim amounted to an arbitrary exercise of power, which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The court further held that the right to fair consideration for regularization is implicit in the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, as arbitrary denial of employment benefits affects the dignity and livelihood of the employee.
The Verdict
The court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
- The petitioner is at liberty to submit a representation to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, along with all relevant material, to establish his continuous service from the date of initial appointment.
- Upon receipt of the representation, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall consider the petitioner's case for regularization strictly in accordance with the law and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
- The respondents must pass appropriate orders within three (3) months from the date of receipt of the representation, along with a copy of this order.
- No order as to costs was passed.
- Interim orders, if any, granted earlier, stand vacated.
- All pending miscellaneous applications stand closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Long-Term Temporary Employees Have a Right to Fair Consideration
- The judgment reinforces that temporary employees with long years of service cannot be denied consideration for regularization arbitrarily.
- Authorities must act in accordance with Supreme Court precedents, such as Umadevi, which mandate that regularization claims be examined on merit.
- Failure to consider such claims may amount to a violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21, exposing authorities to writ petitions under Article 226.
Writ of Mandamus as a Remedy for Inaction
- The judgment demonstrates that a Writ of Mandamus is an effective remedy for employees aggrieved by administrative inaction.
- Courts can direct authorities to consider representations and pass orders within a specified timeframe, ensuring accountability.
- Practitioners should emphasize continuous service records and Supreme Court judgments to strengthen such petitions.
Procedural Compliance Is Mandatory
- The respondents' failure to file a counter-affidavit despite the court's direction weakened their position.
- Authorities must actively engage in legal proceedings and comply with procedural requirements to avoid adverse orders.
- Employees should document their service history meticulously and submit representations with supporting evidence to bolster their claims.
