IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY. THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE y. PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 17387 OF 2022 Between: 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its, Principal Secretary, Transport (R & B) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief, R & B, Administration and NDB New HoD Buildings 4'*^ and 5‘^ floor, 0pp. All India Radio Station, MG Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. The Chief Engineer, for the State of AP, R & B Admn. and GTE, Transport, Roads and Buildings Department Office off the Engineer-in- Chief, R and B, Administration and NDB New HoD Buildings 4*'^ and 5 floor, 0pp. All India Radio Station, MG Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4. The Superintending Engineer, (R & B), Visakhapatnam. 5. The Executive Engineer (R & B), Paderu, Visakhapatnam District. th ...PETITIONERS AND Sri R. Naidu, S/o. Rama Murthy, aged about 58 years. Office Subordinate Office, O/c. Executive Engineer, R & B, Paderu, Visakhapatnam District, Rio. (K Paderu, Visakhapatnam District. Now present working at. O/o. Sub-Division, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ...RESPONDENT .J 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 writ or order more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI by calling for the records relating to orders in O.A.No.4913 of 2014 dated 03-10-2017 by the A. P Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and consequently quash and set aside the same. lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the final orders in O.A.No.4913 of 2014 dated 03-10-2017 by the A. P Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioners : GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent: Mrs. BANDARU RADHIKA The Court made the following: ORDER r iK APHC010227112022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 173«7/?n?9 [3508] ■iW RAO Between: The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Sri R Naidu Counsel for the Petitloner(S): 1.GPFOR SERVICES II 2.GPFOR SERVICES IV Counsel for the Respondent: 1.BANDARU RADHIKA The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAWI WRIT PETITION No: 17387 of 2022 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The respondent herein had joined employment as a contingent watchman from 06.08.1986. The Superintending Engineer, R & B, is said to have submitted proposals for regularization of his The said proposal was returned on account of non availability of sanctioned post under last grade service and also on the ground that the respondent has not passed VII standard services on 12.09.2002. as on 01.06.2004. 2. The respondent had thereafter obtained necessary educational qualifications and sought regularization of services in the cadre of Office Subordinate with effect from 18.06.2008. 3. G.O.Rt.No.597 R & B (Services III) Department was issued, in response to his request, regularizing the services of the respondent as Office Subordinate with prospective effect from 19.06.2013. Thereafter, the services of the respondent were regularized by proceedings dated 02.07.2013 duly stating that the regularization comes into effect prospectively. 4. Aggrieved by these proceedings, the respondent approached the A.P.Administrative Tribunal by way regularization of services on completion of five years as contingent watchman along with all consequential benefits. This O.A. was allowed order dated 03.10.2017, extending the benefit of regularization from 2008 along with all consequential benefits including payment of differential amounts in salary. of O.A.No.4913 of 2014 seeking by the Tribunal, by an 5. As this order was not being implemented, the respondent of W.P.No.10730 of 2019 seeking a approached this Court by way direction to the petitioners herein to implement the directions of the Tribunal dated 03.10.2017 in O.A.No.4913 of 2014. A Division Bench of this Court, after noticing that no writ petition has been filed, challenging the said order of the A.P.A.T., had disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioners herein to implement the orders of the Tribunal. As even these orders were not implemented, the respondent filed C.C.No.1725 of 2021 to punish the petitioners herein for non-compliance 6. of the directions of the Court. 7. At this stage, the petitioners moved the present writ petition bearing No. 17387 of 2022 challenging the orders of the Tribunal dated 03.10.2017. 4 8. The contention of the petitioners is that the consistent orders of the Tribunal as well as this Court, in cases falling under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 have been to direct regularization of services with prospective effect and granting retrospective effect only to the extent of considering the earlier services of the employee, for purposes of calculation of pension and other benefits. 9. The attention of this Court has also been drawn to the judgment of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, dated 02.05.2018, in W.P.No.33936 of 2011, as well as the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 17.08.2015 in Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also draw the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 23.07.2024 in S.LP.No.19481 of 2021. 10. Sri Gayasuddin, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the respondent is entitled to retrospective regularization of his services with effect from 2008. He would submit that the earlier request for regularization, by the respondent, was rejected on the ground that there were no clear vacancies available. Since, such a clear vacancy arose, even according to the writ petitioners, in the year 2008, it would only be appropriate that the respondent was regularized in his service^-with effect from 01.07.2008. 5 Di The consistent stand and directions issued by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in 11. cases of regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212 has been to direct regularization from a specific date with prospective effect and to direct retrospective operation only to the extent of calculation of pension etc. We do not find any reason to deviate from this consistent stand taken by the Court. However, the fact remains that the services of the respondent had been directed to be regularized with effect from the date of issuance of orders of appointment by the competent appointing authority. This direction was issued on 19.06.2013 A reasonable period for compliance of such direction would be period of three months. a further The subsequent delay, on the part of the appointing authority, in carrying out the directions in G.O.Rt.No.597 cannot be held against the respondent. 12. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by modifying the order of the Tribunal, which reads as follows: “The services of the respondent, as Office Subordinate, shall stand regularized with effect from 01.10.2013 consequential monetary and service benefits. The orders of regularization, in favour of the respondent be issued within a period of three months from today, consequential benefits are also to be released to respondent within a period of three months thereafter.” with all All the 6 There shall be applications shall stand closed. no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR ^ECT^ //TRUE COPY// To, OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary, Transport (R & B) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, and NDB New HoD Buildings 4 and 5'^ floor. 0pp. All India Radio Station, MG Road Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief, R & B. Administration 3. The Chief Engineer, for the State of AP, R & B Admn. and CTE Transport, Roads and Buildings Department Office off the Engineer-in- Chief, R and B, Administration and NDB New HoD Buildings A*" and 5“’ MG Road, Vijayawada, Krishna Floor, Opp; All India Radio Station,, District. 4. The Superintending Engineer, (R & B), Visakhapatnam. 5. The Executive Engineer (R & B), Paderu 6. Two CCs to GP for Services II Amaravati [OUT] 7. Two CCs to GP for Services IV Amaravati [OUT] 8. OneCCtoMrs.BandaruRadhika 9. Three C.D. Copies. Visakhapatnam District. High Court of Andhra Pradesh at High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Advocate [OPUC] Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:25/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.17387of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS