1 APHC010447602022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 27453/2022 Between: Daggumalli Lakshmi Kumari ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRIMAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES III 2. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER : The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “……to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings in Memo No 553/CE A l 2017 dt 29.08.2018 issued by the 1st respondent thereby rejecting to regularization of petitioners deceased husbands services and refusing to grant family pension and death benefits payable to her consequent upon demise of her husband Late Daggumalli Srirama Murthy who retired from the service as Night Watch man in the services of the 5th respondents college and died intestate on 02.03.2017, as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violation of G.O.Ms.No.212 Fin ( PC III) Department, dated 22.04.1994 and G.O.P.No 112 Fin (PC III) Department, dated 23.07.1997 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay 2 monthly and family pension payable to petitioner consequent upon death of her husband and pass….” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of Sri Daggumalli Srirama Murthy, who retired from the service as Night Watch man in the services of the 5th respondent and died intestate on 02.03.2017 leaving behind the petitioner as his legal heir. The petitioner's deceased husband was appointed as part time night watch man on being sponsored from the Employment Exchange, vide, proceedings No.51/B2/82, dated 10.09.1984 and retired as such on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2010. Though her deceased husband was appointed as Part Time night watchman, he was directed to discharge the duties of Full time night watchman and he was working from 5.00 p.m. to 7.00 a.m., but he was not given regularization orders. As per G.O.Ms.No.212 Fin. (PC.III) Department, dated 22.04,1994 some Part Time employees were regularized. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner's husband approached the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and filed O.A.No.4996 of 1996 praying for declaration that his service is entitled for regularization and retirement benefits from the date of his initial appointment i.e., 10.09.1984 including increments, seniority etc. The Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal passed orders on 27.08.1996 to consider her husband's case in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 Fin. (PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994 and regularize his service. But the respondents did not pass any orders while her husband was in service. After his retirement, 1st respondent passed Memo No. 11854/CE- 3 1-2/2009-7, dated 11.06.2013, which is served on her husband on 18.12.2014, whereby rejecting the petitioner's husband's case for regularization on the ground that her husband retired from service. It is further stated that aggrieved by such Memo dated 11.06.2013, the petitioner's husband again approached the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and filed O.A.No.2487 of 2015 praying to call for the record relating to the impugned Memo dated 11.06.2013, issued by the 1st respondent and set aside the same, by holding the same as illegal and arbitrary. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal passed orders on 09.11.2016 setting aside the said impugned memo and directing the 1st respondent to examine the case of petitioner's husband under G.O.Ms.No.212 Fin. (PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994 and G.O.(P) No.112, Fin (PC.III) Department dated 23.07.1997 as per the clarification given by the 3rd respondent and pass appropriate orders within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. After lapse of 2 years, the 1st respondent passed impugned Memo No.553/CE.AI/2017, dated 29.08.2018, thereby rejected to regularization of her husband's services. In fact, the 3rd respondent recommended the petitioner’s husband's case for regularization of his service as full time night watch man as he had worked for 14 hours per day i.e., from 5.00 p.m. to 7.00 a.m., but the government has refused his case on the ground that he retired from service. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed. 4 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.1039 Education (J) Department, dated 07.07.1981, Full Time Contingent Posts were sanctioned to 5th respondent college, subsequently, the post of Night Watchman has fallen vacant in 1984 due to resignation of the individual. Therefore, the then Principal, ASNM Government Degree College, Palakollu addressed the District Employment Officer, West Godavari, Eluru for sponsoring the candidate for the post of Night Watchman, in turn the District Employment Officer, Eluru, vide proceedings Rc.No.51/B2/1982, dated 10.09.1984 sponsored Sri D.Sri Rama Murthy as part time Night Watchman on a remuneration of Rs.75/- per month, later it was enhanced from time to time by the Government. It is further stated that in pursuance of Hon'ble A.P.A.T. orders, the 4th respondent submitted necessary proposals to the 1st respondent. Accordingly, the 1st respondent vide Memo No.553/CE.AI/2017, dated 29.08.2018 rejected the request of the petitioner to regularize the petitioner's husband's service as follows: "In terms of G.O.(P) No.112, Fin, dated 23.07.1997, the part time employees have to complete minimum 10 years of service and are continuing as on 25.11.1993 for their regularization" In the instant case, the individual has not completed 10 years of service, hence he is not eligible for regularization of services, in addition, he has already retired from service. Since any Government order shall have prospective effect, a part time watchman, who retired from service cannot be appointed on regular basis. Against the above backdrop and in compliance to 5 the Hon'ble A.Ρ.Α.Τ. Orders, the matter has been re-examined and it is found that the request for regularization of services of the husband of the petitioner, retired watchman, A.S.N.M. Government Degree College, Palakol, West Godavari District, is not eligible either in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Fin. (PC.III) Department, dated 22.4.1994 and or in terms of G.O.(P) No.112, Fin. (PC.III) Department, dated 23.07.1997, hence hereby rejected. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating that her husband discharged his services at 5th respondent college as Night Watch Man since 10.09.1984 to 31.08.2010. Without any interruption, honestly and sincerely he discharged his duties from the last 25 years, without any increment or regularization. At the time of his service, some part time employees were regularized. Aggrieved by the same, her husband approached the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and the same was disposed of by the Hon’ble Tribunal directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. However, without considering the Hon'ble A.P.A.T Orders and after lapse of 17 years, the 1st respondent rejected the petitioner’s husband's claim on the ground that he is retired from his service. The respondents have no respect for Rule of law and they are interested only to serve their political bosses and therefore prayed the Court to allow the writ petition. 6 5. Heard Sri Sriman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-l appearing for the respondents. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the writ affidavit, argued that, thought the Hon’ble Tribunal has directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner’s husband under G.O.Ms.No.212 Fin. (PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994 and G.O.(P) No.112, Fin (PC.III) Department dated 23.07.1997 as per the clarification given by the 3rd respondent and pass appropriate orders within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, after lapse of 2 years, the 1st respondent passed impugned Memo No.553/CE.AI/2017, dated 29.08.2018, rejecting the request of the petitioner’s husband to regularization, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Therefore learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to allow the present writ petition declaring the action of the respondents as illegal. 7. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents while denying the contents made by the petitioner, argued that the husband of the petitioner while working at 5th respondent college retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2010. After retirement, he expired on 02.03.2017. As per the existing Rules in force, the part time employees are not eligible for sanction of service pension/family pension and therefore as there are no grounds to entertain this writ petition, prayed to dismiss the same. 7 8. On a perusal of the material on record, it is observed that, the petitioner’s husband discharged his services at 5th respondent college as Nigh Watch Man since 10.09.1984 to 31.8.2010 without any interruption. He has completed 25 years of service. It is further observed that as some of the employees were regularized, the petitioner husband approached the Hon’ble A.P. Tribunal by way of filing O.A.No.4996 of 1996 and the same was disposed of by the Tribunal directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner’s husband in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 Fin.(Pc.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994 and regularize his service. 9. It is the contention of the respondents that in pursuance of the APAT orders, 1st respondent vide Govt. Memo No.11845/CE.I-2/2009-7 dated 11.06.2013 rejected the proposals for regularization of services of the individual on the ground that Sri D.Srirama Murthy either in terms of G.O.(P) No.112 finance (PC.III) Department, dated 24.4.1994 or G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance (PC.III) Department, dated 22.4.1994 does not arise as the individual was born on 11.8.1950 and he has already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. 10. The Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.212 Fin. (PC.III) Department dated 22.04.1994 for considering the cases of NMRs, Daily wage employees for regularization of their services by imposing a condition that one should have worked for five years continuously as on 25.11.1993. 8 11. The G.O.(P) No.112, dated 23.07.1997 was issued for regularizing the services of Part time Employees, by imposing a condition that one should have completed 10 years of service as on the cut-off date i.e., 25.11.1993. 12. In the present case, the petitioner herein initially appointed as Part- Time Night Watchman and his services should be regularized as per G.O.(P) No.112, Fin Department dated 23.7.1997 wherein the Part time employees should have completed 10 years of service as on the cut-off date i.e., 25.11.1993 eligible for regularization of services. As per the existing rules in force, the Part time or Full time contingent employees whose services were not regularized for fulfilling the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.212 Fin (PC.III) Department, dated 22.4.1994 and or in terms of G.O(P) No.112, Fin (PC.III) Department, dated 23.7.1997 were not eligible for sanction of any service/Family Pension. 13. Moreover, the impugned proceedings were issued by the 1st respondent in the year 2018 and the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2022 i.e., after lapse 4 years and that the petitioner has not explained any reasons for the said delay either in the affidavit or has not filed any documents challenging the proceedings. So, it clearly establishes that the latches on the part of the petitioner only. 14. In view of the above discussion, this Court found no merit in the instant writ petition and devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ____________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : -04-2025 Gvl 10 THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.27453 OF 2022 Date: 10-04-2025 Gvl