I i APHC010363672019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 17313 OF 2019 Between: Anne Rama Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Jr. Assistant- cum-Bill Collector, (Part Time), Narukullapadu Gramapanchayat Mandal, Guntur District - 522 016. Amaravathi ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep, by its Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj Department, Tadepalli, Amarvathi, Guntur District. 3. The District Panchayat Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. 4. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep, by its Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. Amaravathi, ...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 writ order or direction more particularly Mandamus in declaring the action of the 3 one in the Writ of respondent in issuing impugned rd Roc.No.3319/94-G1 clt.29-03-2023 as highly arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the G.O.(P) No. 112 Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department dt. 23-07-1997 and Article 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner w.e.f., 01-07-1999 with all consequential benefits such as increments, arrears of difference of pay and pensionary benefits etc. (Main prayer amended/substituted as per Court order dated 20.04.2023 vide I.A. No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.17313 of 2019 in the petition and affidavit) lA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 respondents forthwith to regularize the services of the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance & Planning dated 22.04.1994 or G.O. (P) No.112 Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 23.07.1997 by considering the representation dated 14-06-2016 made by the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. KESAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following order: APHC010363672019 SMB IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No.17313/2019 Between: ANNE RAMA RAO, S/0. SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC JR. ASSISTANT-CUM-BILL COLLECTOR, (PART TIME), NARUKULLAPADU GRAMAPANCHAYAT, AMARAVATHI MANUAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 016. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, TADEPALLI, AMARVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3.THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4.THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA Pf-^ADESH, REP, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.MKESAVARAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I 2.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: 2 a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3''^ respondent in issuing impugned Roc.No.3319/94-G1 dt. 29-03- 2023 as highly arbitrary, Illegal, contrary to the G.O.(P) No. 112 Finance and Planning (FW.PC.IH) Department dt. 23-07-1997 and Article 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner w.e.f., 01-07-1999 with all consequential benefits such as increments, arrears of difference of pay and pensionary benefits etc. ” Heard Sri M.Kesava Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner, and 2. learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner was initially appointed as Part Time Clerk-cum-Bills Collector in Narukullapadu Gramapanchayat for a fixed remuneration of Rs.200/- per month on 01.07.1981 for a period of two years. Learned counsel would further submit that, as he was removed from service by the Sarpanch, based on the orders passed in I.D.No.82 of 1991, he was reinstated into service with continuity of service and the said period of two years has been extending from time to time. Learned counsel would further submit that, though he was in service from 1981, his services are not regularized on par with others. It is submitted that the Petitioner filed O.A.No.7709 of 2011 on the file A.P.Administrative Tribunal, wherein, the Tribunal vide Order dated 16.09.2011 directed the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. Learned counsel would submit that, the Petitioner is eligible for regularization of services as per G.O.Ms.No.212 and also G.O.Ms.No.112. Though the name of the Petitioner was placed at SI.No.2 in the seniority list prepared by Respondent No.2 for absorption as 3 Panchayat Secretaries - IV, no action has been taken by the Respondents. The Petitioner has put in more than 38 years of service and worked all these years with a meagre amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India and others^ Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services - I would submit 4. that educational qualification for the post of the Junior Assistant-cum-Bills Collector is Graduation but the Petitioner has the educational qualification of S.S.C only. It is further submitted that the Petitioner was not appointed by the District Collector. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that Respondent No.2 had sent proposal to the Government to regularize the services of the Petitioner as per the Order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.7709 of 2011. The Government considered and rejected the request of the Petitioner for regularization of service vide Order in Roc.No.3319/94- G1, dated 29.03.2023. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would finally submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in reply, would submit that the 5. services of the Petitioner may be regularized without any monetary benefit. only for pensionery benefits. The challenge in the present writ petition is, regularization of services of the Petitioner w.e.f., 01-07-1999. There is no dispute about the appointment 6. of the Petitioner as a Part Time Clerk-cum-Bills Collector of Narukullapadu 2024 see OnLine Se 3826 4 fixed remuneration of Gramapanchayat with effect from 01.0/, 1981 for a Rs.200/- per month for a period of two years and his service was extended from time to time. While the Petitioner was working as such, on 08.08.1988, the Sarpanch removed him from service. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner filed I.D.No.82 of 1991 before the Labour Court, Guntur, wherein, an Award dated 13.08.1997 was passed directing the Respondents therein, to reinstate the Petitioner herein into service with continuity of service and back wages. Against the said Orders, the Sarpanch filed W.P.No.29933 of 1997. During pendency of the said writ petition, a General Body Meeting was conducted in the Office of Narukullapadu Gramapanchayat on 29.11.2006. meeting, it was resolved to reinstate the Petitioner, in view of the Orders of the Labour Court in I.D.No.82 of 1991 and for continuation of his service without any interruption with back wages and also for withdrawal of the Writ Petition No.29933 of 1997 filed by the Sarpanch. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.29933 of 1997 was withdrawn on 22.03.2007 and the Petitioner was revived from In the said 01.07.2007 for a further period of two years and nis service was extended from time to time. In that view, it can be safely held that the Petitioner has been in service since 1981. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed O.A.No.7709 of 2011 before the 7. A.P.Administrative Tribunal, seeking regularization of his services, wherein, the learned Tribunal passed an Order dated 16.09.2011 directing the Respondents therein, to consider the case of the Petitioner herein for regularization of his services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. 5 8. Respondent No.2 had sent proposal to the Government to regularize the services of the Petitioner, however, the same was considered and rejected by the Government vide Order in Roc.No.3319/94-G1, dated 29.03.2023 the grounds that the Petitioner was appointed by the-then Sarpanch, Narukullapadu Gram Panchayat, but not by the Collector, who is competent for issuing such orders; that the individual has not acquired requisite qualification since he passed S.S.C instead of Intermediate / Graduation; that no sanction orders are available from 01.07.1988 to 10.06.2007 since the individual was removed from services by the-then Sarpanch, Narukullapadu Gram Panchayat. So far as first ground is concerned, the individual cannot be penalized for the defect in the selection process. The fact remains is that, the District Collector had extended the service of the Petitioner from time to time. With on 9. regard to the educational qualification of the Petitioner, the Petitioner was appointed in the year 1981 and by that time, the requisite educational qualification for the post of Part Time Clerk-cum-Bills Collector was S.S.C. As such, it can be said the he had requisite qualification by the date of his appointment and therefore, his request for regularization cannot be rejected based on the present qualification. Further, it is pertinent to mention that the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance & Planning Department, dated 22.04.1994 formulating a scheme for regularization and absorption of employees on daily wage / NMR or consolidated pay, who have completed a minimum service of 5 years^^and were in service as on 25.11.1993. A- 6 thereto, the Government had also issued another Subsequent G.O.Ms.No.112 Finance & Planning Department, dated 23.07.1997 for regularization of the persons, who have worked continuously as part time workers for a minimum period of 10 years and are continued as on In view of the Award dated 13.08.1997 coupled with the 25.11.1993. resolution passed in the General Body Meeting of Narukullapadu Gramapanchayat on 29.11.2006, the Petitioner is in continuous service from the date of his initial appointment i.e., 01.07.1981. Such being the case, as per the above G.Os., the Petitioner was deemed to be in service as on 25.11.1993. Moreover, during pendency of the writ petition, the Government have passed the impugned rejection order, as such, an amendment is made in the present writ petition challenging such order. 10. In Jaggo’s case referred to supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held as follows: “20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular, ” and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario 7 demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Us. Union of India & Ors., it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. ” \ 11. Further more, Respondent No.3 had prepared the seniority list dated 19.07.2010, wherein, the name of the Petitioner was placed at Serial No.2. Though Respondent No.3 addressed a letter dated 26.04.2014 to Respondent No.2 sending the particulars of the eligible candidates along with the Petitioner for absorption as Panchayat Secretaries - IV, no action has been taken. Inspite of the subsequent representations of the Petitioner, dated 14.06.2016 and 17.11.2017 given to Respondent No.2 for regularization of his service, the Respondents have not taken any action. In view of the above facts and circumstances, and in view of above judgment, it can be held that the impugned order of rejection of request for regularization of the Petitioner on the above grounds, is not sustainable. The Petitioner cannot be deprived of his regularization for his no fault, that too, due to the administrative laches on the part of the Respondents. In that view, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner is entitled for regularization of his services, however, without any monetary benefit. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Respondents are directed to regularize the services of the Petitioner w.e.f., 01.07.1999 notionally. 12. 13. 8 without any monetary benefit, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj Department, Tadepalli, Amarvathi, Guntur District. 3. The District Panchayat Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. 4. The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 5. One CC to Sri M. Kesava Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6. TwoCCsto GP for Services-1, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CC’s to the Advocate General, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:02/07/2025 ORDER WP No. 17313 OF 2019 ^ 0 <1 AUG 2025 X i^Iyrrent Sectioa-^'^ x> ★ DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS