I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 12879 OF 2014 Between: Nelli Satyanarayana, S/o. N.Veeraiah, aged about 48 years, Occ; Time Scale Worker, O/o. Principal Scientist (Hort.) & Head, Horticultural Research Station, Ambajipeta - 533 214, East Godavari District. ...PETITIONER AND The Registrar, Dr.Y.S.R. Horticultural University, Administrative Office Venkataramannagudem, Tadepalligudem - 534 101, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in discriminating the petitioner by not appointing to the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist or any equivalent post on par with others is illegal, unjust and improper, while directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner by regularizing his services by appointment to the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist or any equivalent post on par with others as that has been passed in favour of junior to the petitioners vide Proceedings No.10379/Ser.(NT)/2010 dt. 24.12.2010 No.8078/Ser(NT)/2011, dated 19.09.2013 as considered by orders passed in W.P. No.23952 of 2011 and W.P. No.10575 of 2013 by setting aside the and Proceedings Memo No.11981/Ser.(NT)/2013, dated 18.03.2014 passed by the 1st respondent. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 16154 OF 2014) 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 respondent to pass appropriate order by regularizing the services of the petitioners to the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Typistor any equivalent post by appointment without discriminating on par with others, as that has been considered in Proceedings No. 10379/ Ser.(NT)/2010, dated 24.12.2010 and Proceedings No.8078/ Ser(NT)/2011, dated 19.09.2013 by considering the orders passed in W.P. No.23952 of 2011 and W.P.No.10575 of 2013 by extending the same orders, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVAS EMANI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI HARINATH REDDY SOMAGUTTA (SC FORYSR HCU) The Court made the following: ORDER w APHC010118162014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 12879/2014 Between: Nelli Satyanarayana, ...PETITIONER AND The Registrar ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SRINIVAS EMANI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. HARINATH REDDY SOMAGUTTA (SC FOR YSR HCU) 2.0 SRINIVASA BABA 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH NUNEPALLY WRIT PETITION No. 12879 of 2014 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned 1. counsel for the respondent. The petitioner is challenging the inaction of the respondent in 2. regularizing the petitioner's service to the post of Junior Assistant- cum-Typist and the proceedings dated 18.03.2014, whereby the case of the petitioner was rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, appearing through virtual mode, submits that the petitioner initially worked as a casual laborer from 1992 to 2008 and thereafter as a time-scale worker from 2008 onwards and has been in continuous service for more than 33 years. During the course of his employment, the petitioner completed a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) degree in 2003, passed the English Typewriting Lower Grade examination, and obtained a Postgraduate Diploma in Computer Applications (PGDCA). The learned counsel further submits that the respondents 4. have regularized the services of other employees who were recruited alongwith the petitioner on a casual basis, even though V 3 they did not meet the requirement of completing five years of service as of the cutoff date, i.e., 25.11.1993, as prescribed in Despite the petitioner submitting several representations to the respondents for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist, the respondent has neither replied nor considered the petitioner's representations. G.O.Ms.No.212. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the petitioner 5. filed W.P. No. 29208 of 2013, and this Court, vide order dated 30.12.2013, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.09.2013 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent has regularized the services of other employees recruited on par with the petitioner, including some who are juniors to the petitioner. This regularization was carried out in compliance with the directions of this Court in W.P. Nos. 23952 of 2011 and 10575 of 2013. 6. The petitioner has been continuously working, and a time scale has been extended to him since 2008. The respondents ought to have considered the petitioner's request for regularization in the 4 cadre of Junior Assistant and as at present the petitioner is discharging the role of the Junior Assistant. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on two 7. judgments; U.V.S.R. Prasad and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another and New India Assurance Company Limited, Tadepalligudem v. Varsha Aqua Farm, Visakhapatnam. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent. The 8. learned standing counsel for the respondent submits that, with regard to the consideration of the petitioner's regularization, G.O.Ms.No.212 prescribes a mandatory minimum period of 5 years of service for the regularization of casual or daily wage employees. It is further submitted that since the petitioner had not completed the requisite 5 years of service. Therefore, his case was not considered for regularization. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court, 9. in its considered opinion, deems it appropriate to direct the respondent to regularize the petitioner’s service in the cadre of Junior Assistant or an equivalent post. The petitioner ought to have been granted the benefit of regularization, as juniors to the petitioner were regularized following directions from this Court. Furthermore, 5 the respondents have granted the petitioner a time scale since 2008, and the petitioner has been performing the duties of a Junior Assistant. Given the clear requirement for Junior Assistants within the respondent’s organization, it is appropriate to regularize the petitioner’s service in the cadre of Junior Assistant. It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to any back 10. wages. The order of the regularization and service benefits shall take effect from the date of passing the regularization order. However, the service of the petitioner from the date when the time scale was extended to him in notional seniority purposes only. The respondents are directed to pass necessary orders of regularization within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this Court's order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is “Allowed in-part”. There shall be no orders as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/. K. TATA RAO .DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Registrar, Dr.Y.S.R. Horticultural University, Administrative Office Venkataramannagudem, Tadepalligudem - 534 101, West Godavari District. 2. One CC to Sri Srinivas Emani Advocate [OPUC] [oTuc? Somagutta (SC for YSR HCU) Advocate 4. One CC to Sri C Srinivasa Baba Advocate [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED;09/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.12879 of 2014 WRIT PETITION IS ALLOWED IN PART, WITHOUT COSTS