A. Sudhakara Babu vs The Managing Director, A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., Regional Office and Another

T.N.C. Rangarajan, J.—These writ petitions challenge the termination of the services of persons who claimed that they have been working for a long time with the 2nd respondent-Corporation. The termination has been made in pursuance of a general office order dated 5-8-1995 which stated that several appointments have been made in the Corporation without written permission from the competent authority that the Act 2 of 1994 was promulgated to weed out such illegal appointments, and therefore, the concerned Unit Officers were directed to take immediate and necessary action to terminate the services of those daily wage/NMR/temporary/consolidated wage employees since they do not satisfy the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No. 212 dated 22-2-1994 for having their services regularised. The said office order further states that there are no regular vacancies to absorb them and that the said Government order has no statutory force and cannot override the Act and no Court should enforce any decree or direction for regularisation by virtue of the Act 2 of 1994. In several of the cases, orders of termination have been passed but in many cases, no specific order has been passed and in some cases oral directions have been given to the concerned workmen not to report to duty. In these circumstances, all these petitioners claim that the said office order is untenable because it was made without giving an opportunity to the petitioners to establish that they have fulfilled the conditions given in G.CMs.No. 212 for regularisation, and therefore, the termination of their services is illegal. The petitioners were represented by several Counsel who argued the matter at length and submitted that all the petitioners have been working for a long time and they are entitled to regularisation.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Corporation took me through the counter affidavit and made the following points; he stated that there were no posts and there was no need for employees like these petitioners who had been unauthorisedly inducted into service, that Corporation has several Units which only seasonally operate, and therefore, does not amount to retrenchment, that the Corporation being a company, no writ is maintainable against a Corporation, that Act 2 of 1994 was made only to weed out such unauthorised appointments, that G.O.Ms.No. 212 does not apply to the petitioners, some of the petitioners have already taken up the matter by way of industrial disputes which are pending, and that in respect of one Unit, there is an actual closure, and therefore, the persons working in that Unit cannot be employed at all. In reply, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in respect of the claim that there are no available posts that have advertised for fresh recruitment and finally some of the juniors have already been regularised. It is also pointed out that though it is claimed that the initial appointments were irregular, they were actually ratified subsequently.

Having heard the submissions of both sides and perused the office order in question, I find that the cause of action for the termination was only the application of the provisions of the Act 2 of 1994 and no specific exercise with reference to the reduction in the number of workmen required for the Units was done. If that were the case, there would have been an application for permission to retrench the workmen and the retrenchment would have been made by following the rule ''last come - first go''. Since the Act 2 of 1994 has been applied, it has to be read along with G.O.Ms. No. 212 because the Supreme Court has specifically upheld the Act only on condition that the Government formulates a scheme for regularisation of those who have been working for a long time. It is in this background that G.O.Ms.No. 212 was issued and it provided for certain conditions under which the service of daily workmen though appointed irregularly could be regularised. But such regularisation will depend upon the petitioners fulfilling the conditions specified in the Government Order. In this background, the doctrine of legitimate expectation requires that an opportunity should be given to those persons who will be adversely affected before any order is passed terminating the services. Such order has to be a speaking order giving reasons why their services cannot be regularised. Though the impugned office order is only a general policy decision, and therefore, cannot be faulted with for directing the Unit heads to follow the provisions of the Act 2 of 1994, the only flaw in the office order is that it precludes the application of the provisions of G.O.Ms.No. 212.

In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that it would be sufficient if the respondents are directed to give an opportunity individually to each workman to state whether he fulfills the conditions under G.O.Ms.No. 212, consider his case and decide whether on such fulfilment, he is entitled to have his services regularised. If it cannot be done, then a speaking order has to be issued to him stating the reasons why his services cannot be regularised. The Corporation shall issue show cause notices to each of the petitioners individually and in reply to the show cause notice the petitioners are at liberty to establish that they fulfil conditions under G.O.Ms.No. 212 and also take any other grounds they may have for establishing their claim for regularisation. Until such exercise is undertaken and an order is passed, the workmen concerned who are still in service, are entitled to be continued in service. This, however, does not mean that those who are not in services as on date, would be reinstated. But they will also be entitled to a show cause notice giving specific opportunity to claim that they fulfil conditions under G.O.Ms.No. 212 so that is they do establish that they are entitled to regularisation, they shall be taken back and their services shall be regularised. It was brought to my notice that in certain individual cases, there are already decisions either of industrial tribunal or Court requiring the continuation of services, and such orders have become final. If so, the persons concerned may bring it to the notice of the Corporation and the Corporation shall give effect to the orders produced on the terms therein.

With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.