APHC010619542009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. G.V.VISWESHWARA RAO,KRISHNA DISTRICT & ANOTHER, S/O.LATE VENKATESHWARA AO I/C. ASSISTANT ENGINEER,AP HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED VIJAYAWADA,KRISHNA DISTRICT 2. P.CHANDRA SEKHARA RAJU, S/O.DASARATHA RAJU I/C. ASSISTANT ENGINEER,AP MANUBOLU,,NELLORE DISTRICT 1. GOVT OF AP HOUSING DEPT 3 OTHERS, HOUSING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AP STATE HOUSING CORPORATION, LIMITED, HIMAYATHNAGAR,HYDERABAD 3. THE DISTRICT MANAGER AP STATE HOUSING CORPORATION, LIMITED, KRISHNA DISTRICT,VIJAYAWADA 4. THE DISTRICT MANAGER AP STATE HOUSING CORPORATION, LIMITED,NELLORE 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 toto issue a writ order or direction more in the mandamus declaring IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 11159/2009 G.V.VISWESHWARA RAO,KRISHNA DISTRICT & ANOTHER, S/O.LATE VENKATESHWARA AO I/C. ASSISTANT ENGINEER,AP HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED VIJAYAWADA,KRISHNA P.CHANDRA SEKHARA RAJU, S/O.DASARATHA RAJU I/C. ASSISTANT ENGINEER,AP HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED MANUBOLU,,NELLORE DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND GOVT OF AP HOUSING DEPT 3 OTHERS, HOUSING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AP STATE HOUSING CORPORATION, LIMITED, HIMAYATHNAGAR,HYDERABAD THE DISTRICT MANAGER AP STATE HOUSING CORPORATION, LIMITED, KRISHNA DISTRICT,VIJAYAWADA THE DISTRICT MANAGER AP STATE HOUSING CORPORATION, ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toto issue a writ order or direction more in the mandamus declaring IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI G.V.VISWESHWARA RAO,KRISHNA DISTRICT & ANOTHER, S/O.LATE VENKATESHWARA AO I/C. ASSISTANT ENGINEER,AP HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED VIJAYAWADA,KRISHNA P.CHANDRA SEKHARA RAJU, S/O.DASARATHA RAJU I/C. HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED ...PETITIONER(S) GOVT OF AP HOUSING DEPT 3 OTHERS, HOUSING THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AP STATE HOUSING CORPORATION, THE DISTRICT MANAGER AP STATE HOUSING CORPORATION, THE DISTRICT MANAGER AP STATE HOUSING CORPORATION, ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toto issue a writ order or direction more in the mandamus declaring RCJ, W.P.No.11159 of 2009 2 the action of the respondents in regularizing the services of the petitionrs with prospective effect from the date of issuance of G.O.ms.No.138 Housing, dated 8.5.2006 instead of from the date of their original appointment or atlreast from the date on which they were completed five years of service in terms of orders issued by Government in G.O.Ms.No.182 Housing, dated 13.11.1991 read with the orders issued by the 2nd respondent in Circular No.1218./A2./1991 dated 1.1.1992 is as illegal, and consequently hold that the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services with effect from the date on which they were originally appointed as Work Inspectors(Tech) or from the date on which they completed five years of service in the said post with all consequential benefits including promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers on regular basis and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2009(WPMP 14341 OF 2009 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 to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regular promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers in the existing vacancies in terms of Government Memo No.53975/Ser.D/2000-3 dated 9.1.2001 without reference to completing the minimum period of service in the lower post of Work Inspector (Technical) and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 21966 OF 2013 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 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY 2. A TIRUPATHI GOUD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY R 2. E V JAGANNADHA RAO (SC FOR AP STATE HOUSEING COOP LTD) The Court made the following: RCJ, W.P.No.11159 of 2009 3 ORDER The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents regularized their services with prospective effect from the date of issuance of G.O.Rt.No.138, Housing, dated 08.05.2006, instead from the date of their original appointment or at least from the date on which they had completed five years of service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.182,Housing, dated 13.11.1991 read with the orders issued by 2nd respondent in Circular No.1218/A2/1991, dated 01.01.1992. 2. The petitioners were engaged as Work Inspectors in the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation on a temporary basis at consolidated pay for execution of housing schemes on different dates between the years 1989 and 1993. The petitioners possessed the requisite qualifications and they were appointed against the sanctioned posts. The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.182, Housing (RH) Department, dated 13.11.1991 for regularization of services of employees who had completed five years of service and issued a circular dated 01.01.1992 calling for names of the employees, who had completed five years of service. As per G.O.Ms.No.182, the services of the petitioners should have been regularized immediately after completion of five (05) years of service, however their services were not regularized accordingly, but were regularized by way of issuance of G.O.Rt.No.138, Housing, dated 08.05.2006 with effect from the date of RCJ, W.P.No.11159 of 2009 4 issuance of the said G.O.Rt. i.e. 08.05.2006. The petitioners having been appointed through process of selection and also having been sponsored from employment Exchange, they shall be treated as regular employees from the date of first appointment. If the date of regularization after a lapse of 16 years, the petitioners would be deprived of their legitimate right of promotions and also would have an adverse affect on pensionary benefits. Therefore, the impugned orders regularizing their services from 08.05.2006 in contravention of the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.182, dated 13.11.1991, is illegal. The representations made by the petitioners to consider them for regular promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers is of no avail. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for first petitioner and Sri A.Tirupathi Goud, learned counsel for second petitioner, and Sri R.Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned Government Pleader for Housing Department. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the petitioners having been appointed through a selection process and they having been sponsored by employment Exchange, they shall be considered as regular employees from the date of their first appointment, however their services were regularized from 08.05.2006 i.e. to say nearly sixteen (16) years after their first appointment, not even upon completion of five (05) years in terms of G.O.Ms.No.182, dated RCJ, W.P.No.11159 of 2009 5 13.11.1991, which is violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution. He would further contend that regularizing their services after 16 years of their initial appointment would deprive them of their legitimate right of promotions and also would have an adverse affect on pensionary benefits. He would further contend that the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services at least upon completion of five(05) years of completion of their service as per G.O.Ms.No.182, dated 13.11.1991. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. In support of their contentions, the learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance on the judgment in Government of Telangana vs.V.Ashok Kumar & Others1. 5. Per contra, Sri R.Kalyan Chakravarthy learned Government Pleader, would contend that the petitioners did not complete the requisite five years qualifying service for regularization purpose as on the cutoff date given in G.O.Ms.No.182, dated 13.11.1991 and therefore their services were not regularized. He would further contend that G.O.Ms.No.182 was a onetime measure under which no subsequent regularization was envisaged and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim the benefit conferred in G.O.Ms.No.182, since onetime measure only. The writ petition filed questioning the action of the authorities in regularizing the services of the 1. Orders dated 12.11.2024 passed in SLP(c) No.16570-16571/2019 RCJ, W.P.No.11159 of 2009 6 petitioners with prospective date cannot be questioned and the writ petition being meritless deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioners are claiming that G.O.Ms.No.182, dated 13.11.1991 conferred a right on the temporary employees to seek regularization of services on completion of five (05) years of continuous service. In A.Manjula Bhashini & Ors. vs. Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited and Another2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that policy circulars were one-time concessions and cannot be construed to have conferred a continuous right on the employees to seek regularization of services on completion of five years of service. Admittedly, the petitioners did not complete five years of temporary service on the prescribed cut-off date. In view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioners’ claim for regularization of services in terms of the aforementioned G.O., cannot be accepted. 8. Admittedly, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.138, Housing, dated 08.05.2006 directing to regularize the services of the petitioners with 2. (2009) 8 SCC 431 RCJ, W.P.No.11159 of 2009 7 prospective effect. By the said date, the petitioners have completed sixteen (16) years of qualifying service. 9. In Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and others3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while reiterating the observations made in S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071] , R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937], held at para 53 thus: “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 10. In view of the observations made in the above referred decisions that the services of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts who 3. (2006) 4 SCC 1 RCJ, W.P.No.11159 of 2009 8 have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals shall be regularized. 11. There is no dispute that the petitioners are duly qualified persons and they were initially appointed on temporary basis at consolidated pay. Therefore, as per the observations made at para-53 of the decision in Umadevi (supra-3), the petitioners are entitled to have their services regularized upon completion of ten (10) years of qualified service. Whereas, by the date of regularization on 08.05.2006, they had completed sixteen (16) years of qualified service. 13. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Managing Director, The Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited and another (supra-1), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the similar issue held that, it would, therefore, be unfair and unjust to deprive the employees from their status as regular employees for an indefinite period only because no policy decision was taken by the State until the regularization of the service of the respondents w.e.f.08.05.2006. 13. In the decision in Managing Director, The Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited and another (supra-1) relied on by the petitioners, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “21. The respondents shall be accordingly entitled to notional fixation of pay from the date of regularization of their services, without payment of actual RCJ, W.P.No.11159 of 2009 9 arrears. The orders to this effect shall be passed within a period of four months. We, however, decline the consequential relief of promotion sought by the respondents. Such an exercise at this stage would lead to opening a pandora’s box, and would possibly invite multiple litigation, besides unsettling of certain settled claims of the employees who were appointed on regular basis from the very inception. We thus, make it clear that the respondents shall from the date of regularization of their services on completion of 10 years of temporary service be entitled to notional pay fixation as well as post- retiral benefits, as may be admissible to the regular employees. However, their claim for arrears of pay upto 08.05.2006 or for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers or any other post is declined.” 13. In the instant case also for want of policy decision of the State, the petitioners were deprived from their status as regular employee. It is relevant here to note that the petitioners have already been found suitable for regularization of their services and a formal order to that effect was passed vide G.O.Rt.No.138, Housing, dated 08.05.2006. In view of the observations made in Umadevi (supra-3), even in the absence of any subsequent policy decision at the hands of the State, the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services on completion of 10 years of temporary service. However, the consequential relief sought by the petitioners for promotion, since would invite multiple litigation, and further their claim for actual arrears cannot be granted. 14. In the above view of the matter and in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, The Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited and another (supra-1) this writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: RCJ, W.P.No.11159 of 2009 10 (a) The services of the petitioners shall be re-determined with effect from completion of ten (10) years of temporary service by them (b) The petitioners shall be entitled to notional fixation of pay from the date of regularization of their services, without payment of actual arrears. (c) The petitioners shall from the date of regularization of their services on completion of 10 years of temporary service be entitled to notional pay fixation as well as post-retiral benefits, as may be admissible to the regular employees. (d) The claim of the petitioners for payment of arrears of pay upto 08.05.2006 or for promotion to the post of assistant Engineers or any other post is declined. (e) There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR