APHC010228252012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 5535/2012 Between: A. Peddintlu ...PETITIONER AND The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. A.Sreedhar Counsel for the Respondents : Learned GP for Higher Education Sri. P.A.V.Balaprasad The Court made the following Order: 1. The petitioner is challenging the in-action of the respondents in not regularizing the service of the petitioner and seeks a direction for regularization of his services with effect from 22.12.1989 and also seeks arrears of salary with effect from 01.06.1998. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner was engaged as a contingent employee on 01.07.1988 by the 3rd respondent. The engagement of the petitioner was selected through a selection committee WP.No.5535/2012 appointed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner was selected against a regular aided post in the 3rd respondent/college. The appointment of the petitioner was ratified by the 2nd respondent and that the petitioner has been discharging the duty ever since then. However, the services of petitioner was not regularized. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner virtually online with similarly placed employees were duly considered and relies on the judgment passed by this Court in WP.No.25627 of 1999, whereby this Court directed the respondents therein to consider the claim of the petitioner therein for regularization and to pass necessary orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is similarly placed employees as that of the petitioner for whom this directed the respondents to regularize his services as directed in WP.No.25627 of 1999. 4. The 3rd respondent has filed counter and attention of the Court is drawn to para 3 of the counter, wherein it is stated that, the proposal sent by the 3rd respondent seeking approval of annual salary statement pertaining to the 3rd respondent was sent to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent deleted the name of the petitioner from the list sent by the 3rd respondent by stating that separate orders were issued to the petitioner. No orders were WP.No.5535/2012 passed to the petitioner ever since then. As such, the 3rd respondent had not taken any decision for payment of salary and regularization of the services of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is still continuing in service of the 3rd respondent. The respondents 1 and 2 have not filed their counters, however, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner has been extended the minimum time scale vide proceedings dated 07.10.1994. 5. It is also submitted that the regularization of part-time contingent employees working in private junior college was a one time activity and the petitioner did not meet the conditions required vide GOMs.No.362, Education (CE.III-1) Department, dated 07.10.1994 for considering regularization of his services. 6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, this Court has no hesitation to observe that the service of the petitioner were initially engaged by following due selection process. However, the respondents 1 and 2 did not ratify the same though a proposal was sent by the 3rd respondent as early as 1998-1999. There is no explanation for the undue delay on part of the respondents 1 and 2 in either passing a reasoned WP.No.5535/2012 order on the recommendation of the 2nd respondent for regularizing the service of the petitioner. 7. The respondents 1 and 2 have after lapse of 27 years also have not granted any approval for the regularization of service of the petitioner though the 1st respondent deleted the name of the petitioner from the list sent by the 3rd respondent by stating that separate orders will be issued in so far as the petitioner is concerned, no orders have been issued by the respondents 1 and 2 in spite of lapse of 27 years. 8. Considering the same there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner keeping in view the lengthy service of the petitioner. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled any back wages. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part without costs. 9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stands closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM WP.No.5535/2012 91 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 5535/2012 Dated 29.01.2025 KGM