APHC010026502021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Friday, the First day of April The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition (AT) No. Between: A. Sampath Kumar S/o A.Ramachandra Charyulu East Godavari District AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Environment, Forest Science and Technology Velagapudi, Amaravathi Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.R. Srinivas Counsel for the Respondents: G.P for Forests The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) First day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition (AT) No. 271 of 2022 A. Sampath Kumar S/o A.Ramachandra Charyulu ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Environment, Forest Science and Technology Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: for the Respondents: The Court made the following: [3333] Two Thousand and Twenty Five ...Petitioner …Respondents 2 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.271 of 2022 ORDER: This petition under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, was filed seeking the following relief: “….to declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the applicant though he has completed 5 years of service as on 25.11.1993 and continuing as on that date till today and satisfying the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.212, dt.22.4.1994 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the applicant as Technical Maistry (Junior Assistant) in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dt.22.4.1994 by fixing an out time limit and pass such other order or orders……” 2. Heard Sri K.R.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Forests appearing for the respondents. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: a. The petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis as Technical Maistry in the respondent department on 09.08.1988 to 07.04.1990 and again from 08.04.1990 to 30.06.1994 and thereafter, he is continued on daily wage basis. Thus, the petitioner had completed more than 30 years of daily wage service in the department. b. The petitioner passed B.Com and also qualified in English typewriting higher and Telugu typewriting. As per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, he is entitled to regularization of service as he had completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993 and has been continuing in the service as on date. 3 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.271 of 2022 c. The petitioner submitted representations to the respondents seeking regularization of his services. Till today, no action has been taken, except sending proposals. The respondents, through G.O.Rt.No.384, dated 20.07.2010, extended minimum time scale of pay to those who were continuing in the department as on 25.11.1993. They prepared a list of persons working as daily wage / NMR / consolidated pay basis in the forest department as on 25.11.1993. The petitioner is shown in the said list at Sl.No.19. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to regularization of his service. 4. The respondents filed counter affidavit with the following averments: a) Sri A. Sampath Kumar, the petitioner, was granted remuneration as a Junior Assistant in the time scale vide G.O.Rt.No.384/EFS&T (For.V) Department, dated 13.08.2010, in Logging Division, Bhadrachalam, and he has been working against the sanctioned post of Junior Assistant of Government Timber Depot, Chintur, East Godavari District. As per the Division records, he was not given any appointment order. He was engaged as a Typist on daily wage basis as and when required by paying the rates fixed by the District Collector, Khammam from time to time for the days he was engaged. His first engagement was on 08.01.1991 as Typist on daily wage basis and worked afterwards with break in period of service. Thereafter, he was engaged on 01.07.1994 and worked continuously on daily wage basis. b) The minimum period required for regularization of services as on 25.11.1993 is five years and he/she should be continuing as on 25.11.1993. As the services of the petitioner are continuous from 01.07.1994 only, the petitioner has no continuous service of 5 years as 4 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.271 of 2022 on the cut-off date. After critically reviewing the case of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, he was found not eligible for regularization. Hence, he was granted remuneration at the minimum time scale of pay of Rs.8440/- plus D.A in the vacancy available in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Logging Division, Bhadrachalam. The remuneration of the petitioner was fixed as per the revised pay scale, 2015 with effect from 01.07.2013 and as per the orders in O.A.No.6979 of 2013 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, the petitioner was granted HRA, Addl. HRA with effect from 27.09.2013, the date of the order. c. The respondents also filed additional counter affidavit with the following averments: (i) The Tribunal issued interim orders, dated 26.12.2018, in O.A.No.2844 of 2018 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance (FW PCIII) Department, dated 22.04.1994 and pass appropriate orders. (ii) As per the available records, as there was no evidence of eligibility, an opportunity was given to the petitioner to prove his case. A speaking order was passed to the effect that the petitioner is not eligible for regularization of services as he had not fulfilled the conditions stated in G.O.Ms.No.212 Fin (PC-III) Dept., dated 22.04.1994. 5. Perused the record. 6. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though he is entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, he was denied the benefit by wrongly showing brake in service, whereas the documents, 5 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.271 of 2022 viz., copies of certificates issued by the competent authority which were filed along with the petition, would clearly show his continuous service as required under the aforesaid G.O. 7. Though the counter and the additional counter affidavit were filed by the answering respondents, there is no denial of copies of service certificates, dated 07.04.1990, 30.06.1994 filed by the petitioner along with the petition. They clearly indicate that the petitioner worked as daily wage technical maistry from 09.08.1988 to 07.04.1990 and from 08.04.1990 to 30.06.1994 both of which indicate a continuous period from 09.08.1988 to 30.06.1994. They indicate two different periods of service as they were issued on different dates. But, they relate to the whole period covered by continuous service. The initial employment of the petitioner on 09.08.1988 is an admitted fact. This is also evident from the statement showing the list of persons working as daily wage / NMR / Consolidated Pay basis in the Forest Department as on 25.11.1993 copy of which is annexed to the petition and the name of the petitioner is indicated at Sl.No.19 showing his service from 09.08.1988 onwards. In spite of all such evidence and the petitioner complying the conditions required for application of the aforesaid GO as he had completed his service of five years long before the GO and has been continuing in the similar capacity, he was denied the benefit of regularization of service from the date of the GO. The counter affidavits do not adequately answer the grievance of the petitioner. 8. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed. 6 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.271 of 2022 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as Technical Maistry (Junior Assistant) in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 01-04-2025 RAR