AP HC Upholds Regularisation Of Peon After 30 Years Service Despite Absence Of Sanctioned Post, Says Nomenclature Of Designation Insignificant
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the regularisation of E. Subba Rao (Respondent 1)— who had worked 30 continuous years as 'Games Peon' at Guntur Medical College and was being denied regularisation on the ground that the post of 'Games Peon' did not officially exist.The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT) had allowed an application seeking regularisation filed by Respondent...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the regularisation of E. Subba Rao (Respondent 1)— who had worked 30 continuous years as 'Games Peon' at Guntur Medical College and was being denied regularisation on the ground that the post of 'Games Peon' did not officially exist.
The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT) had allowed an application seeking regularisation filed by Respondent 1 and consequently directed the State (Petitioner 1) to consider his regularisation on the grounds that he was appointed on contingent basis on a fixed salary in Guntur Medical College— which was run with government funds, and was receiving government cheques drawn on SBI Treasury, which showed that the salaries were paid by the Government.
Affirming the APAT order, Division Bench of Justice B. Krishna Mohan and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma held,
“The meaning of the word 'peon', as per Oxford Dictionary for Indian subcontinent includes a low ranking soldier or worker, therefore, it can be understood that, 'peon' is an office messenger, attendant and usually refers to support the staff in an office/association, also known as 'office assistant'. Their duties include maintaining cleanliness, providing general support to office staff.”
The Division Bench thus held,
The Designation 'peon' in Government department or office is a category of post having role in day to day functioning of the office. As rightly observed by the learned APAT, nomenclature of the designation does not play major importance but duties of the 1st respondent herein E.Subba Rao, require consideration and continuity of his service plays important role. Learned APAT has correctly addressed all the objections. Reasoning of APAT touching the eligibility of the applicant for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 is convincing. Hence, we are of the opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings and conclusions drawn by the learned APAT as to the eligibility of the applicant/1st respondent herein, for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994.”
Background
Respondent 1 had initially filed an application before the APAT contending that he had worked continuously for 30 years as a 'Games Peon' and sought relief of declaring the action of the State authorities in not regularising his services as per G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning, dated 22.04.1994 (the 1994 GO) as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and against Articles 14, 16 and 21.
Vide order dated 27.04.2010 (impugned order)— the APAT allowed the application and directed Petitioner 1 authorities to consider the applicant for grant of regularisation of his services, if necessary by creating the post of 'Games Peon' in Guntur Medical College and if not, in any other clear vacancy of Class-IV in the said College, for which he is eligible, or in any other departments, District Offices, as contemplated under the 1994 GO.
Aggrieved, the petitioners challenged the impugned order by way of a writ petition on the grounds that— (i) wages paid to Respondent 1 were met from Students Association Fund; (ii) applicant was appointed as 'Games Peon' by the Sports Association; (iii) while APAT found that Cheques were drawn on SBI Treasury Office, duly signed by the drawing Officer, the cheques were issued in the capacity of the President of the Games and Sports Association by the Principal, not as a drawing officer; and (iv) Respondent 1 was not appointed on contingent basis and there was no post of 'Game Peon' in Guntur Medical College, and as such, benefit of the 1994 GO could not be extended.
The petitioner relied on State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others [2006 (4) SCC 1], where the Supreme Court had deprecated the practice of backdoor appointments and regularisation of daily-wage or temporary employees, terming it a "class of litigious employment” and had directed the State and its instrumentalities to take steps to regularise, as a one-time measure, the services of irregularly appointed employees who had worked for 10 years or more in sanctioned posts without Court intervention. The Court had further directed governments to ensure regular recruitment and to prevent future bypassing of constitutional procedures.
The primary contention which thus fell before the Court was whether Respondent 1 fell within the ambit of the 1994 GO.
Court's Findings:
The Court noted that Respondent 1 had worked continuously as 'Games Peon' and his appointment was temporary with effect from 06.08.1976 at Rs.90/- per month.
The Court clarified that the petitioners had not disputed the fact that Respondent 1 was rendering his services and performing duties such as marking boundary lines, fetching the sports items such as balls, bats, nets, playground requirements and so on. Similar duties are performed in other posts like Office Subordinate, sweepers, Thoty, bearer, watchmen, gatemen, dhobi, animal attendant, gardener, ayah etc. The petitioners objected on the ground that the post of 'Games Peon' did not officially exist, thereby placing Respondent 1 outside the scope of the 1992 GO.
Upholding the impugned order based by APAT, the Court concluded that the designation 'peon' in Government department or office is a category of post having role in day to day functioning of the office and nomenclature of the designation does not play major importance.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Case Details:
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 25887/2010
Case Title: The Government Of Andhra Pradesh v. E Subba Rao and Others