APHC010343112012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 10802/2012 Between: 1. N.V. NARAYANA, S/O. DANDU, WATCHMAN R/O. 24C/7 KOMMAVARI VEEDI, NEAR BALAYOGAVANTHENA, R.R. PET, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 1. THE A P SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TELUGU SANSHKEMA BHAVAN, (DAMODAR SANJEEVA SANSKKEMA BHAVAN), MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FINANCE PLANNING, DEPARTMENT, REPRE GOVT. A.P.SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 3. THE PRINCIPAL A P SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL JUNIOR, COLLEGE (BOYS), PEDDAVEGI, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the Respondents in not regularizing the Petitioner service in terms G.O.MS. No.212, dated 22- Z-II/P/3147/2011, dated 12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 10802/2012 S/O. DANDU, WATCHMAN R/O. 24C/7 KOMMAVARI VEEDI, NEAR BALAYOGAVANTHENA, R.R. PET, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND THE A P SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TELUGU SANSHKEMA BHAVAN, (DAMODAR SANJEEVA SANSKKEMA BHAVAN), MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FINANCE PLANNING, DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. A.P.SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. THE PRINCIPAL A P SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL JUNIOR, COLLEGE (BOYS), PEDDAVEGI, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the ction of the Respondents in not regularizing the Petitioner service in terms -04-1994 by set aside the Proceedings Pr. Rc. No. II/P/3147/2011, dated 12-12-2011 issued by the 1st respondent as IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] S/O. DANDU, WATCHMAN R/O. 24C/7-60, KOMMAVARI VEEDI, NEAR BALAYOGAVANTHENA, R.R. PET, ...PETITIONER(S) THE A P SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TELUGU SANSHKEMA BHAVAN, (DAMODAR SANJEEVA THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FINANCE PLANNING, SENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE PRINCIPAL A P SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL JUNIOR, COLLEGE (BOYS), PEDDAVEGI, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the ction of the Respondents in not regularizing the Petitioner service in terms 1994 by set aside the Proceedings Pr. Rc. No. 2011 issued by the 1st respondent as 2 arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to regularize the service of the Petitioner in terms of G.O.MS. No.212 dated 22-04-1994 by considering the Petitioner representation dated 27-12-2011. IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 13663 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the petitioner representation dated 27-12- 2011 for regularization his service in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated 22-04- 1994, pending disposal of the writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NOOKA JAGANNADHAM 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 3. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The petitioner is seeking a direction for regularizing his service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, and a consequential direction to set aside the proceedings dated 12.12.2011 issued by the 1st respondent. 2. The petitioner joined the service of the respondents as a daily wage employee and was working as a watchman from the year 1988. Though the petitioner was initially engaged on daily wages, he was discharging the duties of a regular watchman. As such, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13065 of 1991, and this Court directed the respondents to extend the basic wage to the petitioner. The regular salaries of a watchman were paid to the petitioner with effect from 14.06.1993. The respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 on the sole ground that an artificial break in service during the period from 01.05.1990 to 30.06.1990 was created for the purpose of denying the petitioner the benefit of regularization. It is submitted that the petitioner is still working as a watchman with the respondents and is drawing minimum time scale. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3 submits that a detailed counter is filed and that the petitioner is not eligible for seeking the relief of regularization, as he did not complete the requirement of five (05) years of continuous service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, which is a mandatory requirement for considering regularization. It is submitted that there 4 is a break of two (02) months from 01.05.1990 to 30.06.1990, and as such, the petitioner was not considered for regularization. 4. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.44902 of 2018 and batch, wherein a similar issue was considered and the services of the petitioners therein were directed to be regularized along with consequential benefits. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been in service of the respondent organization from the year 1988 onwards and is still working as a watchman. It is also not in dispute that the respondents have extended time scale to the petitioner. The respondents do not contend that there was no sanctioned vacancy or that there is no necessity for engaging the petitioner in the said post. The petitioner has been continuously working on a temporary basis while discharging duties on a regular basis as a watchman. This would indicate that the services of the petitioner are perennial in nature and that the respondents require his services for safeguarding their property and upkeep of their institution. Following the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, it is pertinent to note that the break in service for a period of two (02) months is an artificial break created by the respondents for the purpose of denying the benefit of regularization, On such ground, the service of the 5 petitioner cannot be considered to render the petitioner ineligible for seeking regularization of his services. 7. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has been working as a watchman for the past 38 years and that the respondents have extracted service from him for the said period. When the issue of regularization is raised, the respondents have taken shelter under the artificial break in service of two (02) months. The services of the petitioner are required to be regularized. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of extension of regular time scale, and appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With these observations, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 16.04.2026 PNS