Anand Yendapally (Clerk) 07 August 2014

How much strength in my case

Respected Sir,

This is the AP High Court direction, plz; read the direction and kindly guide me

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

WRIT APPEAL No.1639 of 2013

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

This appeal is filed against the order, dated 15.07.2013, in WPMP.No.9330 of 2013 in W.P.No.7429 of 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

The sole respondent herein was appointed as a General Mazdoor in the Singareni Collieries Company Limited on 07.04.1997. According to him, right from the inception, he is entrusted with the duties of Clerk and other related activities. Complaining that he has been required to discharge the functions of Mazdoor abruptly, he filed W.P.No.22501 of 2012. An interim order was passed on 24.07.2012 in WPMP.No.28823 of 2012 directing the respondents, the appellants herein, to permit the respondent herein to function as Data Entry Operator-cum-Clerk in the office of the Chief of Exploration, Singareni Collieries Company Limited at Kothagudem. WVMP.No.3039 of 2012 was filed therein by the appellants with a prayer to vacate the interim order. The learned Single Judge of this Court made the interim order absolute through order dated 15.11.2012. Aggrieved by that, the appellants filed W.A.No.1598 of 2012. A Division Bench of this Court passed an order dated 14.12.2012 disposing not only the writ appeal, but also the writ petition and Contempt Case No.1544 of 2012. It was left open to the respondent to submit a representation, for necessary relief, to the Chairman and Managing Director, the 1^st appellant herein, and the latter, in turn, was directed to pass orders.

The 1st appellant is said to have passed an order dated 31.12.2012, rejecting the claim of the respondent. Assailing the same, the respondent filed W.P.No.7429 of 2013. In WPMP.No.9330 of 2013, the learned Single Judge passed an order under appeal directing that the appellants shall spare no effort to find a suitable clerical avocation for the respondent and to entrust the same to him in the offices/establishments, wherever it is feasible, within 30 days. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that when the appointment of the respondent was against the post of General

Mazdoor, the question of his being given any other work does not

arise.

The respondent appeared in person. He submits that he has been entrusted with other functions for the past several years and apart from him, some other General Mazdoors also were made to work as clerks. He submits that having worked as Clerk and Data Entry Operator for several years, it would not be possible for him to discharge the arduous duties of a Mazdoor.

It is not in dispute that the appointment of the respondent on 07.04.1997 was as General Mazdoor. He asserts that almost from the date of appointment, he has been required to work as Clerk or

Data Entry Operator, particularly, in the office of the Chief of Exploration, Singareni Collieries Company Limited at Kothagudem. He has also enclosed a certificate, dated 30.08.2011, issued by GM (Exploration)/Corporate. The certificate, no doubt, mentions that the respondent has discharged the functions of typing, data base formation, operation of LCD projectors, internet and the like. The fact, however, remains that in that certificate, the respondent was described as “General Mazdoor with EC.No.0121490”.

It is not uncommon that the persons holding particular positions in the Organizations are required or made to discharge functions, which are attached to some other offices in the exigencies of service. It is more a question expediency than a regular pattern. It is only when a person is appointed as against the substantive vacancy either temporarily or on permanent basis, he can claim the right to discharge the functions attached to those offices.

The question as to whether the order passed by the 1^st appellant, refusing to accede to the request of the respondent, is legal or proper, needs to be considered at the hearing of the writ petition. Once it is not in dispute that the respondent is only a General Mazdoor, the direction to the appellants to permit him to work in a different capacity does not accord with law. On the other hand, it may encourage similar claims by various persons and that, in turn, may disturb the functioning of a gigantic Organization like Singareni Collieries Company Limited. If the respondent has to be

entrusted with the duties of a clerk, every General Mazdoor, who

possesses qualifications prescribed for the post of Clerk would be

justified in making similar claims.

Another contention of the respondent is that some of the General Mazdoors are being entrusted with clerical duties. Firstly, the appellants denied the same. Secondly, an illegality can never be treated as a precedent or basis.

We, therefore, allow the Writ Appeal and the order under appeal is set aside. We direct that the writ petition itself be listed for hearing in the 1st week of August, 2014. It is also directed that in case the respondent reports to duty as General Mazdoor, the appellants shall be under obligation to permit him to discharge the duties attached thereto. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall stand disposed of.

______________________

L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J

_________________________

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,J

03.07.2014

v v

My Question is:

Doest this order is in my favour or in industry favour

How much strength is there in my case to approach Supreme Court

How do Supreme Court reacts with these subjects

How to engage an advocate at Supreme Court

How much I need to pay as fee towards the writ for advocate