APHC010546282022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 33456/2022 Between: 1. POTTIMOTHU POTHU RAJU, S/O.NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC.MAN MAZDOOR, R/O. CHINA GOLLAPALEM, KRITIVENNU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P., ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, 3. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, MAJOR IRRIGATION, CURRENCY NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P., 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CIRCLE, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P., 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DRAINAGE DIVISION,BHIMAVARAM - 1, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P., 6. THE DY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DRAINAGE SUB-DIVISION, BHIMAVARAM - 1, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P., 7. DISTRICT MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER, DRAINAGE SUB- 2 DIVISION, BHIMAVARAM -1, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P., ...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 topleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing my service as on 25.11.1993 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dt.22.04.1994 issued by Department of Finance and Planning, Government of Andhra Pradesh as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to regularize my service on completion of 5 years of my service as on 25.11.1993 and count my pre-regularization service for the purpose of my Pensionary Benefits and pay arrears of salary and other consequential and attendant benefits with an interest at 12percent per annum and grant costs of the proceedings and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for counting pre regularization of service for the purpose of pensionary benefits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES III 2. GP FOR SERVICES IV 3. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services I, III and IV. 3 2. Challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents in regularizing the services of the petitioner, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 issued by the 2nd respondent, the instant writ petition is filed. 3. It is contended that the petitioner was appointed as Mazdoor on 01.08.1982 in the Office of the 6th respondent. The petitioner was assigned the task of clearing the trees along the drains and levelling them. In the process, he was assisting the Work Inspector and the Assistant Engineer. The job assigned to the petitioner is a perennial one; however, the respondents did not regularise the services and paid daily wages. Although, the duties are those of a regularly employed Man Mazdoor. Petitioner, placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, seeks regularisation of duties since the petitioner has completed five years of service on 25.11.1993, which is the cut-off date under the said G.O. Although, the 4th respondent recommended the petitioner’s case for regularisation, the file remained moving from one table to another without any proceedings. Thus, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.15783 of 2019, and the same was disposed of vide order dated 15.10.2019, directing the 1st to 6th respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner. Since the same was not complied with, a contempt case was filed by the petitioner. Pending the same, vide G.O.Rt.No.542 dated 03.11.2020, the 1st respondent directed the regularisation of the petitioner’s services in the Post of Sweeper from the date of the said G.O. Accordingly, the petitioner was posted at the Office of the 2nd respondent as a regular sweeper on 24.03.2021. The petitioner contends 4 that he should have been regularized in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, since he had completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993. Thus, filed an instant writ petition to take into consideration the pre-regularization of service, for pensionary benefits. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Pitchaiah, relies on the decision of the Division Bench of the erstwhile composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.33936 of 2011 and batch, wherein this Court passed the following order: <[52] As already pointed out, when no regular exercise was ever undertaken in any Department to assess the vacancy position so as to immediately extend benefit to those covered by G.O.Ms.No.212, it is not open to the State to now come forward and say that there were no vacancies as on the date that the employees in question completed five years in service, on or before 25.11.1993. A mere assertion in this regard is nothing short of an unsupported self-serving ipse dixit on the part of the State and its instrumentalities and cannot be accepted at face value. Further, the facts in some of the cases on hand clearly demonstrate that despite clear vacancies being available, no timely steps were taken. Further, when such employees were retained in service for decades together, the necessity to continue them as per the workload is manifest and clearly demonstrated, requiring no further evidence. In such a situation where the State and its instrumentalities are responsible for the situation where it cannot be assessed now as to whether Condition No.5 in G.O.Ms.No.212 stood fulfilled as on the date of completion of five years in service by the employees concerned, the benefit of doubt would invariably have to be given to the said employees and not to the State. It is perhaps this very aspect that weighed with the Supreme Court in B.SRINIVASULU, as no mention was made therein of strict compliance with Condition No.5 in G.O.Ms.No.212, despite the said issue being brought up by the Nellore Municipal Corporation. 5 [53] The question of the State Exchequer being saddled with additional expenditure in relation to such regularisation does not arise, as the relief already granted to some of the employees in the cases on hand is to reckon their services upon completion of five years on or before 25.11.1993 only for the purpose of their pension and pensionary benefits. They are not to be given any monetary benefits in the form of arrears of pay or otherwise. Similar relief would have to be extended to those employees who were non-suited by the Tribunal and are before this Court. As all of them served the State or its instrumentalities for decades together, extending to them the benefit of such service only for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits can hardly be said to be an onerous burden either on the State or the State Exchequer. Having utilised their services all along. the State and its instrumentalities cannot now turn their back on the loyal services rendered by these employees. ----- [55] On the above analysis, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the authorities concerned to extend the benefit of B.SRINIVASULU to the employees in this batch of cases by reckoning their services from the date of completion of five years in service, on or before 25.11.1993, for the purposes of their pension and pensionary benefits. They shall however not be entitled to actual monetary benefits for the said period, in the form of arrears of pay or allowances.= 4. Having regard to the above and following the principle laid in the case referred supra, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench in W.P.No.33936 of 2011 and batch. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:17.09.2025 ANI 6 136 THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No.33456 of 2022 Date:17.09.2025 ANI