::1:: APHC010360632022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 21843/2022 Between: 1. MD.SHAHIDDIN,, S/O IBRAHIM, AGE 50 YEARS, TECHNICAL WORK INSPECTOR, 0/0 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R.W.S.ANDS SUB-DIVISION, TENALI, R/O DOOR NO. 10-8-31/A, HUZZUR CHOWK, CHENCHUPET, TENALI, GUNTUR DIST-522202. 2. MALLE SRINIVASARAO,, S/O VENKATA RAIDU, AGE 57 YEARS, OCC. NON -TECHNICAL WORK INSPECTOR, O/O RWSANDS, TENALI SUB-DIVISION,R/O SUDDAPALLI VILLAGE, CHEBROLU MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST. 3. A.LAVAKUMAR,, S/O RANGARAO, AGE 57 YEARS, N.M.R.WATCHMAN, O/O R.W.S AND S , TENALI SUB- DIVISION, R/O NAZARPETA, KOLLUVARI STREET, TENALI , GUNTUR DIST. 4. K.SRINIVASARAO,, S/O NARAYANARAO, AGE 57 YEARS, N.M.R.TECHNICAL WORK INSPECTOR, 0/0 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWSANDS BAPATLA SUB-DIVISION, R/O APPIKATLA , BAPATLA DIST. 5. KUKKALA SOMIREDDY,, S/O PAPAHARANA REDDY, AGE 56 YEARS, OCC. NON -TECHNICAL WORK ::2:: INSPECTOR, 0/0 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWSANDS, BAPATLA SUB-DIVISION, R/O MARIYA RANI COLONY, VENGALA VIHAR, BAPATLA, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 6. THOTA KOTESWARARAO,, S/O CHANDRA MOULI, AGE 46 YEARS, OCC. NMR NON-TECHNICAL WORK INSPECTOR, O/O RWSANDS, SUB-DIVISION -2, SATHENAPALLI, R/O 75 THYALLURU , DOOR NO. 4- 176, PEDAKURAPADU MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. 7. KANDULA SRINIVASARAO,, S/O SUBBAIAH, AGE 53 YEARS, TECHNICAL WORK INSPECTOR, RWSANDS, GUNTUR -1 SUB-DIVISION, R/O KAJA VILLLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, LASYA RESIDENCY, 3RD FLOOR, FLAT NO. 307, NEAR MURAGAN HOSTEL BACK SIDE, GUNTUR DIST. 8. J.SRINIVASARAO,, S/O VENKATESWARLU, AGE 51 YEARS, OCC. NMR DRIVER, O/O DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWSANDS , SUB-DIVISION-11, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DIST. 9. GIDDALURI BALA KOTAIAH,, S/O VENKATESWARLU, AGE 52 YEARS, OCC. NON-TECHNICAL PUMP MACHANIC ( NMR) , 0/O RWSANDS, NARASARAOPET SUB-DIVISION, NARASARAOPET, R/O NGOS COLONY, 1ST LANE BACK SIDE, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT. 10. POLICHERLA BUJJIBABU,, S/O ADAM, AGE 52 YEARS, OCC. NON-TECHNICAL PUMP MACHANIC( NMR), 0/O RWSANDS, VINUKONDA SUB-DIVISION, BOLLAPALLI MANDAL, PALNADU DIST, R/O EPUR, S.C.COLONY, EPUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PALNADU DIST. 11. SHAIK MOHAMMED KHASIM ,, S/O HUSSAIN, AGE 51 YEARS, OCC. NON -TECHNICAL PUMP MACHANIC, ::3:: O/O RWSANDS, PIDUGURALLA SUB-DIVISION, R/O JANAPADU, PIDUGURALLA MANDAL, MASEEDNOOR BAZAR, PALNADU DISTG. 12. SYED JOHNY BASHA,, S/O SYED GALIB SAHEB, AGE 55 YEARS, OCC. TECHNICAL WORK INSPECTOR, 0/O RWSANDS, SATHENAPLLI -1 SUB-DIVISION, R/O STATE BANK ROAD, OPP.KONDAREDDY HOSPITAL, SATHENAPALLI MANDAL, PALNADU DIST ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF R.W.S.AND S, SECRETARIAT, BLOCK NO. 5, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, RWSANDS DEPARTMENT, GOVT OF A.P., VASUDA COMPLEX, GOLLAPUDI ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST. 3. THE STATE OF A P, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND BLOCK, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RWSANDS CIRCLE, Z.P. COMPOUND, NAGARAMPADU, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DIST. ...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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents not regularising the services of the petitioners in their respective posts and existing vacancies as ::4:: held by this Hon’ble High court in W.P.No. 24377/2007 as confirmed in the W.A. No. 782/2010 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and further direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners in their respective posts As considered by the respondents Memo No. 1037429/PRR01/2019-ESTT-II dated 19.9.2025, which is issued in implementation of judgements in O.A.No. 1420/2001, O.A.No. 2108/2001 and judgment in W.P. No.15089/2019 and existing vacancies from the date of their initial appointment in terms of Judgment in W.P.No. 27217/2017 as confirmed in W.A.No. 782/2010 and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Main Prayer amended/substituted as per Court Order dated 31.12.2025 vide IA No.1 of 2025 in WP No.21843 of 2022. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T V V KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES III 2. GP FOR SERVICES I ::5:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No: 21843/2022 This Court made the following ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents not regularizing the services of the petitioners in their respective posts and existing vacancies as held by this Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.24377/2007 as confirmed in theW.A.No.782/2010 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and further direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in their respective posts As considered by the respondent’s Memo No.1037429/PRR01/2019- ESTT-II dated 19.09.2025, which is issued in implementation of judgments in O.A.No.1420/2001, O.A.No.2108/2001 and judgment in W.P.No.15089/2019 and existing vacancies from the date of their initial appointment in terms of judgment in W.P.No.27217/2017 as confirmed in W.A.No.782/2010 and pass” 2. The contents of the writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioners were initially appointed as NMR Work Technical and Non-Technical Inspectors and Watchman and Non-Technical Pump Mechanics before 25.11.1993 and they were granted Minimum pay Scales to their respective posts and posted in different places and other Government Welfare Programmes. ::6:: 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while the petitioners are working, the Government has issued G.O.Rt.No.747, dated 25.02.2005 wherein the Government has granted minimum time scale and D.A to the petitioners and other subsequent revision of pay scale were extended to the petitioners from time to time. Learned counsel submits that the 2nd Respondent sent proposal to the 1st Respondent vide Proc.CCT’s Ref.No.E4/839/2007, dated 04.08.2009, wherein it is categorically stated that there are 339 vacancies are available and proposed for regularization of services. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioners are getting all the benefits on par with the regular employees, but their services are not being regularized in spite of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgments as in the case of similarly situated persons as there are number of existing vacancies in the last grade category are available in the 2nd Respondent’s Department. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi1 wherein it is categorically held in para-53 stating that the persons who have completed 10 years of services in temporary 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 ::7:: service is entitle for regularization. But even then no action has been taken in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 10.04.2006. Subsequently in the case of State of Karnataka and another vs. M.L.Kesari and others2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the persons who have completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006, all those persons are entitled for regularization and directed the concerned department to regularize their services and the same is also interpreted by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Kodali Raju and others vs. APSRTC3 wherein this Hon’ble Court allowed the writ petition directing the respondents therein to regularize the services of the individuals. Against which the W.A.No.782/2010 is filed and division bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the Writ Appeal on 10.05.2013 and the matter is carried to the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court also dismissed the SLP. In view of the same, the petitioners also similarly situated persona as that of the petitioners in W.P.No.24377/2007, but no action is taken for regularization, though there are existing vacancies as on the date of appointment and even as on today. Learned counsel for the 2 2009(8) SCC 431 3 2011(1) ALD 234 ::8:: petitioners further submits that the petitioners completed more than 27 years of service in the P.R Department, if the petitioners’ services are not regularized they will suffer irreparable loss and the inaction may become violation of Hon’ble Apex Court judgments. Learned counsel further submits that this Hon’ble High Court in similar circumstances was pleased to pass orders in W.P.No.27217/2017 on 19.09.2017 wherein it has been categorically stated that for regularization of their services of the NMRs therein has to be considered for regularization of their services from the date of completion of 10 years service against the existing vacancies in terms of Para-53 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India orders held in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (Supra-1), as such all the petitioners also entitled for the same relief. 5. 5. On the other hand, Respondent No.4 filed counter-affidavit contending thus: “4. It is humbly submitted that the Petitioners in the above WP No.21843 of 2022 are working as NMRs [Nominal Mustered Roll] in Guntur, Palandu and Bapatla Districts of Andhra Pradesh. The Petitioners in the above WP, have not completed five (5) years of service as on the cut-off date i.e., 25.11.1993 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994. 5) It is submitted that the above petitioners were engaged as NMR prior to 25.11.1993 and are not qualified for regularization ::9:: under GO.Ms.No.212 Dated 22.04.1994. The Government after careful examination issued G.O.Rt.No.1523 of PR and RD Dated 26.10.2009 to extend minimum Pay + DA without annual grade increment and other benefits from 2005 PRC and same were implemented from time to time to the petitioners herein. 6) It is reiterated that as per the G. O. Ms. No. 212 Finance (PC.III) Department dated 22-04-1994, the Government formulated a scheme for regularizing the services of the persons appointed on daily wage/NMR/Consolidated pay/Contingent worker on full time basis, who worked continuously for a minimum period of (5) years and are continuing on 25-11-1993, subject to fulfilment of certain conditions stipulated therein. The conditions in G. O. Ms. No. 212, dt. 22.04.1994, are re-produced below: 1. The persons appointed should possess the qualifications prescribed as per rules in force as the date from which his/her services have to be regularized. 2. They should be within the age limits as on the date of appointment as NMR/Daily Wage employee. 3.The rule of reservation wherever applicable will be followed and back-log must be set-off against future vacancies. 4. Candidates sponsoring from Employment Exchange is relaxed. 5. Absorption shall be against clear vacancies of posts considered necessary to be continued as per the work- load excluding the vacancies already notified to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission/District Selection Committee. 6. In the case of Work-Charged Establishment where there will be no clear vacancies because of the fact that the expenditure on Work-Charged is at a fixed percentage of P.S. charges and as soon as work is over, the services of Work-Charged establishment will have to be terminated, they shall be adjusted in the other departments District Offices provided there are clear vacancies of last Grade Service. 7) It is humbly submitted that the petitioners are not qualified by G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994, includes availability of a clear vacancy, against the roster points generated for various social groups as per the Rule of Reservation etc. 8) The NMRs who have not completed the stipulated 5 years of service as on 25.11.1993 are given time scale of pay as per G.O.Rt.No. 1523 of PR and RD Dated 26.10.2009 basing on their working category without regularizing their services. Thus ::10:: the service of the petitioners was not regularized as per the Government policy. Now, the petitioners and other similarly situated persons will not be covered under FR. Only regular employees would be covered by Fundamental Rules. 9) It is submitted that as per the GO.Rt.No.1523 PR&RD (Estt.II.A) Department, Dt.26.10.2009, the Government have accorded sanction to allow the payment remuneration at the rate of minimum time Scale of pay in Revised Pay Scales 2005+ DA to the (93) Technically Qualified NMR's working in various Divisions of RWS&S Department in the State, subject to the conditions that the department should meet expenditure within their budget provisions, and no additional/grants will be allowed and granting of minimum time scale shall not confer any right for their regularization of their services, it does not confer any right to the NMRs (Time Scale Employees) for grant of increments or other benefits. 10) The Petitioners are engaged as NMR without applying for any notification (or) following any due procedure as envisaged under regular employment. As such the petitioners accepted to the terms of employment cannot now seek for regularization of service in contrary to the constitutional scheme or employment rules.” 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services – IV and perused the material placed on record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the petitioners are entitled to get regularization of their services immediately upon completion of 10 years of temporary service as per the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (Supra 1) and as per the decision of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kodali Raju and others vs. ::11:: APSRTC (Supra 3), however, despite of availability of existing vacancies the services of the petitioners was not regularized. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 8. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Services – IV contend that the petitioners are engaged as NMR without applying for any notification (or) following any due procedure as envisaged under regular employment. As such the petitioners accepted to the terms of the employment cannot now seek for regularization of services in contrary to the constitutional scheme or employment rules. Hence prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the decision in Jaggo vs. Union of India & others, 4 Shripal & another vs. Nagar Nizam Ghazibad5, Dharam Singh vs. State of UP6, Vinod Kumar & others vs. Union of India7 and State of Gujarat Vs.Talabahai Dhananjibhai Patel8. 4 2024 SCCONLINE SC 3826 5 2025 INSC 144 6 2025 INSC 998 7 2024 INSC 332 8 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 187 ::12:: 10. As could be seen from the pleadings, the undisputed facts in this case are that the petitioners were initially appointed as Non-Muster Roll (NMR) Work Technical and Non-Technical Inspectors and Watchman and Non-Technical Pump Mechanics before 25.11.1993 and in terms of G.O.Rt.No.747, dated 25.02.2005 the Government has granted minimum time scale and D.A to the petitioners and other subsequent revision of pay scale were extended to the petitioners from time to time. 11. In State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (Supra 1) the Hon’ble Supreme Court while reiterating the observations made in S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128: AIR 1967 SC 1071], R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937], held at para 53 thus: “53. 44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the ::13:: services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date.” 12. In State of Karnataka and another vs. M.L.Kesari and others (Supra 2) a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the true purport of the directions contained in para-52 of the Judgment in Uma Devi’s (Supra-1) case as thus: 5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against `regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. Umadevi casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10.4.2006). ::14:: 6. The term `one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services. 7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered. 8. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for regularization in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the protection of any interim ::15:: order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure.” 13. In Jaggo vs. Union of India & others (Supra-4), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby ::16:: contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.” 14. In State of Gujarat Vs.Talabahai Dhananjibhai Patel (Supra 8), the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: “It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand.” 15. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are duly qualified persons. Even if it is presumed that the petitioners have been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments would be considered to be irregular but not illegal and hence they are entitled to get the benefit of para-53 of Umadevi’s case (Supra-1). 16. Further, the continuation of petitioners in temporary posts for more than three (03) decades itself can be construed that there are vacant posts available and the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services upon completion of ten (10) years of qualified service. ::17:: 17. For all the above reasons, the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date when they have completed 10 years in the existing vacancies. 18. In view of foregoing discussion and also in view of observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court as above, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the Respondent Authorities to regularize services of the petitioners from the date when they have completed ten (10) years of service as per the rulings made in Umadevi’s case (Supra 1) . The petitioners be entitled to all the benefits including post-retiral benefits, as may be admissible to the regular employees, including pension. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J DT: 09.04.2026 krk ::18:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.21843 of 2022 DT: 09.04.2026 krk 122