IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE n r \ /PRESENT ^ THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI1>I^ATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 13864 OF 2019 Between: 1. M Elia, S/o Jakaraiah, Aged 64 years, Occ. Retd. Employee, R/o 4-53- 43-27, Diguvapatnam Colony, Moragudi, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District. 2. N. Pullaiah, S/o Ganganna, Aged 61 Years, Occ. Retd. Employee, R/o 9-32, Old State Bank, Vempalle, YSR Kadapa District. 3. C. Rajanna, s/o Prabhudas Aged 64 years, Occ. Retd. Employee, R/o 4/614, Diguvapatnam Village, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa Dist. 4. N. Yohan, S/o Prakasham, Aged 55 years,(died) Occ. Attender, R/o HNo. 5/55, Rand B Bungalow, Muddanur, YSR Kadapa District. 5. Smt.Nerella Devamani, W/o.Late.Yohan, Aged 54, R/o HNo 5/55 R and B VTC, Muddanur, YSR Kadapa District. Petitioner No.5 brought on record as LR to the Deceased 4th Petitioner, as per Court Order dated 05.03.2025 vide I.A.No.2 of 2025 in WP No.13864 of 2019. ...Petitioners AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its PrI. Secretary to Govt., Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Dept., Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur. 2. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, D.No.12- 47, PVS Empire, Pathuru Cross Road, Tadepalli.Amaravathi 522501. 3. District Collector, (Panchayat Wing), YSR Kadapa District at Kadapa. 4. District Panchayat Officer, YSR Kadapa District. 5. Dy. Director, District Treasury, YSR Kadapa District. 6. Sub Treasury Officer, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District. r ...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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the memo of the 2nd respondent dated 14.08.2018 thereby directing the Director, PR and RD, Vijayawada to submit a detailed report with regard to the regularization of services of the petitioners and holding that the 2nd respondent regularized the services of the petitioners as attenders under G.O.Ms.No. 212 dated 22.04.1994 without the prior permission of the 1st respondent as illegal, irregular, irrational, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice, and offends 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently suspend the memo of the 2nd respondent dated 14.08.2018 and direct the respondent No. 1 to release the retirement benefits and consequential benefits from the date of regularization with immediate effect. 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 suspend the memo of the 2nd respondent dated 14.08.2018 and release the retirement benefits in respect of petitioners 1 to 3 and consequential benefits for ail the petitioners from the date of regularization w.e.f from 06.11.1995 vide proceedings No.16717/G2/95 of the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. K R SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents; GP FOR Court made the following order; PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The 1 APHC010299992019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 13864/2019 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) M Elia and Others AND ...RESPONDENT(S) State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S); 1.KRSRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP) The Court made the following; ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer; “ to issue a Writ, order or direction more particuiarly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the memo of the 2”"' respondent dated 14.08.2018 thereby directing the Director, PR and RD, Vijayawada to submit a detailed report with regard to the regularization of services of the petitioners and holding that the 2"'' respondent regularized the services of the petitioners as attenders under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 without the prior permission of the f‘ respondent as illegal, irregular, irrational, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice, and offends 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently 2 x suspend the memo of the 2''"' respondent dated 14.08.2018 and direct the respondent No. 1 to release the retirement benefits and consequential benefits from the date of regularization with immediate effect and pass such other order or orders ” 2. Heard Sri K.R.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1st petitioner was appointed as a daily wage employee. He belongs to the SC community. He was appointed to a sanctioned post vide proceedings dated 31.03.1987. Likewise, petitioner No.3 and petitioner No.4 were also appointed as daily wage employees in sanctioned posts vide proceedings dated 31.03.1987. Whereas petitioner No.2 was appointed as a daily wage employee. He belongs to the OC community, holds the qualification of SSC and ITI (Fitter), and was appointed to a sanctioned post vide proceedings dated 30.10.1983. Petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.3 retired on 30.06.2015. During the pendency of the petition, petitioner No.4 died, and his wife was brought on record as his legal representative as petitioner No.5. Learned counsel would submit that petitioners 1, 3, and 4 completed 28 years of service, whereas petitioner No.2 completed 33 years of service in the Department. Learned counsel further submits that the Commissioner, i.e., respondent No.2, directed respondent No.4 to submit proposals for regularizing the employees working on a daily wage basis, as there were vacancies, vide letter dated 06.11.1995. Learned counsel would submit that a memo has been filed along with the 3 letter submitted by respondent No.4, i.e., the DPO, to the office of the Commissioner, giving all the particulars of the petitioners, and requested respondent No.2 to regularize their services along with the District Level Committee report, which shows they were approved as eligible for regularization vide letter dated 23.05.2018. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioners are eligible for regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.212, which was issued to regularize the services of daily wage employees who had completed five years of service by the cut-off date, i.e., 25.11.1993, and continued in service. All the petitioners completed five years of service as of 25.11.1993 and had been working in the Department till their superannuation . Learned counsel would further submit that in light of the judgment of the 4. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo v. Union of India and others, dated 20.12.2024, it was clearly held that when an employee is allowed to continue in service, even on a daily wage/NMR/part-time/adhoc basis and thereafter retires from service, he should be regularized even if he is illiterate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court distinguished the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others^ and held that such appointments are irregular and not illegal, but services should be regularized and concluded that the period prior to regularization should be counted for retirement benefits. Learned counsel would submit that petitioner No.1 and ^ AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 1806 4 petitioner No.3 have no academic qualification but are able to read and write. The Department has utilized the services of petitioners 1 and 3 for more than two and a half decades. Learned counsel would further submit that in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shripal and another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, at paragraph No.17, the Court directed the authorities to regularize the services of employees who had been working as gardeners since 1998 and 1999. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of their contentions, also relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajkaran Singh and others v. Union of India and others^. State of Gujarat and others v. 5. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, and also in Vinod Kumar and others etc., v. Union of India and others ^. Learned counsel finally submits that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.768 of 2020 also directed the authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner along with pensionary benefits. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I would submit that 6. respondent No.2 had regularized the services of the petitioners, though he is not the competent authority. The Government is the appropriate authority to take such a decision. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits ^ [2024] 8 S.C.R. 516 ' [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230 5 that the Court may pass appropriate orders in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material 7. placed on record, in the counter, it is pleaded that respondent No.2 had regularized the services of the petitioners, although he is not the competent authority, vide orders dated 06.11.1995. The letter addressed to the District Panchayat Officer, i.e., respondent No.4, from the office of the Commissioner i.e., respondent No.2, dated 06.11.1995, reads as follows; “The District Panchayat Officer, Cuddapah, is informed that Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance, dated 23.04.1994, for regularization of part-time employees working in different Gram Panchayats, subject to the condition that there should be a clear vacancy to absorb them, excluding vacancies already notified. The Finance Department has issued further clarification in their D.O.Lr.No.35245/A-1/303/A-2/11194, dated 28.10.1994, for regularizing the Gram Panchayat staff. There are also certain staffing pattern and regularization rules issued by the Government in the Panchayat Raj Department for staff working in Gram Panchayats, and such conversion/upgradation depends upon the income of the concerned Gram Panchayat and not the length of service. Similarly, the APAT, in its judgment in a batch of petitions filed by certain Gram Panchayat employees, has ordered that regularization of the Gram Panchayat staff who are otherwise eligible and suitable for such regularization, appropriate orders shall be passed in terms of ^ G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, as it is applicable to Gram Panchayats also. Instructions have been issued in this office Memo No.16072/G-2/94, dated 16.09.1995, to all District Panchayat Officers in the state to furnish necessary information regarding the vacancy position in each category. In the reference 3rd cited, the District Panchayat Officer, Cuddapah, reported that there are 6 vacancies of Bill Collectors, 10 vacancies of Sweepers, one post of Attender, one post of Lighter, and one post of Turncock available in his district. The expenditure in the above-said Gram Panchayats is below 30% of the normal income. After examining the report sent by the District Panchayat Officer, Cuddapah, the Commissioner (PR) hereby orders to fill up the vacant 6 posts of Bill Collectors, 10 Sweepers and Attenders, and to convert the post of Lighter into Class-IV and fill up the said vacancies per the District Seniority of the concerned feeder category. Thereafter, the District Panchayat Officer shall send as necessary proposals to this office for regularizing the service of such part-time employees who were promoted.” In light of the language employed in this letter, it is evident that respondent No.2 did not independently regularize the services of the 8. petitioners. Rather, in obedience to the orders of the Government, the office of the Commissioner addressed a letter to the DPC to examine the issue in light of the guidelines issued under G.C.Ms.No.212 and to send a report. In obedience to such orders, respondent No,4 exercised his power, and a District Level Committee was formed. They examined the cases of the petitioners J individually and found them eligible for regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.212. There is no dispute regarding the eligibility of the petitioners for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212. In the counter, it is also not disputed that the petitioners joined the Department and continued working in the same Department until their superannuation without any break in service. It is also not disputed that they had completed five years of service as of the cut-off date, i.e., 25.11.1993, as required under G.O.Ms.No.212. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that although they challenged the memo dated 14.08.2018 issued by respondent No.2, they have restricted their prayer to seeking regularization along with retirement benefits and consequential benefits from the date of regularization. Learned counsel submits that the memo dated 14.08.2018 pertains solely to the drawing of salaries of the petitioners from the 010 account. 9. On a compilation of the facts and circumstances of the present case, in light of the recommendation of the DPO to the office of the Commissioner, along with the report of the District Level Committee certifying that the petitioners are qualified for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212, and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that educational qualification is not mandatory after extracting 30 years of service from individuals similar to regular employees, it is appropriate to allow the writ petition. Accordingly, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for 10. 8 V regularization as per the recommendations made by the DPO, which fortified by the District Level Committee report. The respondents are further directed to examine the cases of the petitioners regarding their retirement benefits and consider their service for the calculation of pension without monetary benefits. This exercise shall be completed preferably within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. are 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A. VIJAYA BABU ASSSSTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The PrI. Secretary to Govt., Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Dept., State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur. 2. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, D.No.12- 47, PVS Empire, Pathuru Cross Road, Tadepalli, Amaravathi 522501. 3. The District Collector, (Panchayat Wing), YSR Kadapa District at Kadapa. 4. The District Panchayat Officer, YSR Kadapa District. 5. The Dy. Director, District Treasury, YSR Kadapa District. 6. The Sub Treasury Officer, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District. 7. One CC to Sri. K R Srinivas Advocate [OPUC] , 8. Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj Rural Dev, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Three CD Copies GSC w V A HIGH COURT DATED:05/03/2025 \ ORDER WP.No.13864 of 2019 ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS