1 APHC010582652022 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: 35281/2022 Between: I.v.sambasiva Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G V S MEHAR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES IV 2. Tata Venkata Sridevi,Standing Counsel For Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences The Court made the following: ORDER: This 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 action of the 2nd respondent herein in issuing the Memo in No 3528/MIII/2004 dt 17.11.22021 in rejecting the proposal of regularization of service of the petitioner in the post of Office Subordinate in pursuance of the Letter No HMF01 OPEFOSEVIR/1/2018C SECHM 8s FW dt 4.12.2021 issued by the 1st respondent is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principals of natural justice and contrary to the G.O.Rt.No.394 dt 4.6.2018 and Judgment of this Honble Court in W P No 6558/2016 and 7320/2017 and consequently set side the same and to pass….” 2 2. The grievance of the petitioner is thathe was joined as a office boy in the 2nd respondent university at the age of minor i.e. 16 years and after attaining majority, he was working as Office Sub-ordinate under work charged establishment and since then he is working with utmost satisfaction of the superior authorities of the 2nd respondent university without any remark.While the things stood thus, the Government has issued a G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-4-1994 formulating certain guideline for regularization of services of the employees who are working on NMR/Consolidated/Daily wages/Work Charged basis. As per the said G.O., the employees who are completed 5 years of services as on 25-11-1993 with fulfilling of other conditions mentioned in the said G.O are eligible and entitled for regularization of their services. In this regard, the petitioner made an application for regularization to the Government i.e. 1strespondent herein through the 2nd respondent herein on the ground that he completed the 5 years of service as on 25-11-1993 with fulfilling of other conditions and one such condition is that the said post is notified with clear vacancy and further as per said G.O., the regularization should be given with preference to the Work Charged employees over with others.But, to his utter surprise and dismay, theGovernment i.e. 1st respondent herein has rejected the petitioner’s case on the ground that he was joined in the service as office boy rendered from 2-12-1987 to 14-4-1989 and after attaining majority i.e. at the age of 18 years, he was continued as office sub-ordinate in the clear existing vacancy. It is submitted that in pursuance of the said rejection order, the 2nd respondent herein passed the 3 rejection order vide proceedings No.3528/MIII/2004, dated 17-12-2021 on the ground that he is not eligible for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-4-1994. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit. while denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, stated that, the Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, Government of A.P. has issued G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1904 by stipulating certain conditions to fulfill the eligibility for regularization of employees who have been appointed before the cut off date i.e., 25-11-1993 One of the condition in that employees who were appointed before the cut off date have to be completed 5 years of service as on the cut off date Le 25-11-1093. Now the contention of the writ petitioner is that he has been appointed on 02-12-1987 as he has 5 years of service including under age service. The G.O.Ms. No.212 holds that even the persons who were appointed as Daily Wage/NMR or on consolidated pay and are continuing the commencement of the Act such persons who worked continuously or continued as on 25-11-1993 be regularized by the appointing authorities subject to the conditions. And in case of work charged establishment where there is no clear vacancies the expenditure on work charged is at a fixed percentage of P.S. charges and as soon as the work is over the service of work charged establishment will have to be terminated and subsequently they may be adjusted in the other departments provided there are clear vacancies of Last Grade Service. Whereas, in the case of petitioner, he is not having requisite minimum of age as per Rule No.8 of the A.P.Last 4 Grade Service Rules 1992. Hence the services of the petitioner cannot be regularized on par with other eligible employees. 4. Heard Sri G.V.S. Meher Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-IV appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, requests this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner in pursuance of the order of this Court in WP No.6558/2016 and WP No.7320/2017 and pass appropriate orders by setting aside the impugned proceedings issued by the respondents. 6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents opposed for allowing the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 7. Perused the material on record. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was joined as Office boy in the 2nd respondent University at the age of minor i.e., 16 years and it is also not in dispute that after attaining majority, the petitioner was working as Office Subordinate under work charged establishment. 9. It is the contention of the petitioner that the 1st respondent Government has rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the 5 petitioner was joined in the service as an Office boy rendered from 2.12.1987 to 14.4.1989 and after attaining the majority i.e., at the age of 18 years, he was continued as Office Subordinate in the clear existing vacancy. In pursuance of the said order, the 2nd respondent also issued rejection order dated 17.12.2021 on the ground that the petitioner is not eligible for regularization in terms of G.O.ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. 10. On a perusal of the record, it is observed that, when the petitioner’s application was not considered by the respondents herein, he filed WP No.27130 of 1995 and the same was allowed with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and also regularize his services. 11. Moreover, it is the contention of the respondents that the 1st respondent after careful consideration has informed to the University through letter dated 4.12.2021 that the petitioner was engaged on daily wages on 2.12.1987 as minor age and not rendered the requisite service of 5 years of continuous service as on 25.11.1993 after attains the age of 18 years. Therefore his case is not feasible for regularization and his service is also not covered under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. 12. The similar issue came before the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in WP No.6804 of 2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 26.04.2013, holding as under: “In this case, it is not in dispute that the 1st respondent is working in the Municipal Corporation and as it is also not in dispute that the earlier orders issued by the Municipal 6 Administration Department in G.O.Ms.No.1320, dated 15.12.1981 and G.O.Ms.No.300, dated 24.06.1985, were in force, and in view of the further judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3567 of 2006, dated 26.04.2011, we are of the view that precisely, the subject matter of the writ petition is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3567 of 2006, and in that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the writ petition, so as to interfere with the directions of the Tribunal to deny regularization to the 1st respondent even after rendering 23 years of continuous service on NMR basis.” 13. In addition to the above, the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in WP No.6558 of 2016, dated 3.3.2016, held as under: “We have given our earnest consideration to the facts of the present case, which as we observe supra, are very hard. No doubt, G.OMs.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, stipulates that the persons, who seek regularization, should be within the age limit as on the date of appointment as NMR/DWW. However, by the time the said G.O., was issued, respondent No.1 has completed five years service as DWW, which included the period of two years and three months as minor. Thus, this is not a case, where the engagement of respondent No.1 was made in violation of the conditions stipulated in the said G.O., after its advent. If respondent No.1, was engaged before he attained majority, in our opinion, the substantial blame shall be apportioned to the officer, who permitted him to work as DWW. Coming from a poor strata of society, respondent No.1 has no choice, other than working as DWW even before attaining his majority. Undisputedly, since respondent No.1 attained his majority, he has put in a long number of years of service till date. Based on these hard realities, we are not inclined to deny the relief to respondent No.1 granted by the Tribunal, only on the ground that he did not satisfy one of the requirements of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, pertaining to his age.” 14. In the present case, the petitioner herein was appointed as an Office boy at the age of minor. No doubt, G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 stipulates that the persons, who seek regularization, should be within the age limit as on the date of appointment as NMR/DWW. However, by the said G.O. was issued, the petitioner herein has completed five years service, which included the period which he worked as minor. Thus, this is not a case, where the engagement of petitioner was made in violation of conditions stipulated in the said G.O., after its advent. If the petitioner was engaged before he attained majority, this Court is of the opinion that, the substantial blame shall be apportioned to the officer, who permitted him to work as Office boy. Coming from a poor strata of society, the petitioner has no choice, other than working as Office boy even before attaining his majority. It is also observed 7 that, since the petitioner has attained his majority he has put in a long number of years of service till date. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to deny the relief to the petitioner only on the ground that he did not satisfy one of the requirements of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 pertaining to his age. 15. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and by following the judgment passed in WP No.6558 of 2016, dated 3.3.2016 of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, referred to above, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition, in terms of the said order, while declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the proposal of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary.. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned Memo in No.3528/MIII/2004, dated 17.12.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent is hereby set aside. Further, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and pass appropriate orders in terms of the order dated 3.3.2016 passed in W.P. No.6558 of 2016, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. 17. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date : -04-2025 Gvl 8 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITON No.35281 of 2022 Date : .04.04.2025 Gvl