APHC010015572024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 1004/2024 Between: 1. SMT MIRAPA SURAMMA, W/O LATE M.SOMULU HINDU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O H.NO.276, BIT NO.L NEW BRIDGE JUNCTION, PHOOLBAGH COLONY VIZIANAGARAM. VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI. AMARAVATHI. GUNTUR DISTRICT. A.P 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SECRETARY FINANCE(CT) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS. SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. GUNTUR DISTRICT A.P 3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH, KUNCHANAPPLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONERSTATE TAX, VIZIANAGARAM DIVISION, VIZAINAGARM DISTRICT. 2 5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERST, M.G. ROAD (EAST) CIRCLE, VIZIANAGARM. VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT ...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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the Proceedings of the 2nd Respondent bearing Memo No.REV01-CCSTOCCTC/26/2022 Dated 30.11.2023 and consequential proceedings of the 3rd,4th and 5th Respondents bearing CCSTOCCTC/26/2022 Dated12.12.2023, bearing JC(ST)VZM/PS/RC No.215/2019/A2 Dated 14.12.2023 and bearing RC.NO.498/96/HC Dated16.12.2023 respectively is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to regularize of her deceased husband services in the cadre of Sweeper-cum-Night Watchman from the date of his initial appointment with all consequential benefits with interest including granting of family pension to the petitioner and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 regularize of her deceased husband services in the cadre of Sweeper- cum-Night Watchman from the date of his initial appointment with all consequential benefits, pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S SYAMSUNDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I (AP) The Court made the following: 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.1004 of 2024 O R DE R: The present writ petition is filed questioning the memo issued by Respondent No.2 on 30.11.2023 vide Memo No.REV01-CCSTOCCTC/26/2022 and consequential proceedings of Respondent Nos.3, 4, and 5 bearing No.CCSTOCCTC/26/2022 dated 12.12.2023, JC(ST)/VSM/PS/RC No.215/2019/A2 dated 14.12.2023, and RC.No.498/96/HC dated 16.12.2023 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The husband of the Petitioner by name M.Somulu (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.Somulu’) was appointed as Sweeper-cum-Watchman in the Commercial Tax Department on 31.10.1985 vide proceedings in RC.No.1114/85 A, through the employment exchange under the Schedule Caste category. Later, he was sanctioned remuneration of Rs.740/- per month and has been working ever since as a full-time contingent employee. While so, G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance & Planning Department, dated 22.04.1994, was issued by the State proposing to regularize the services of full-time contingent employees, who have completed five years of service as on 4 25.11.1993. Pursuant thereto, the said M.Somulu made a representation to the Respondents to regularise his services in the cadre of Sweeper-cum-Watchman from the date of initial appointment with all consequential benefits. 3. The representation of the Petitioner was rejected by the 3rd Respondent vide order dated 28.01.2010 as M.Somulu did not pass the seventh class examination and did not produce the caste certificate to claim relaxation. Questioning the same, M.Somulu filed O.A.No.1831 of 2011 before the A.P.A.T. The A.P.A.T. confirmed the order of the 3rd Respondent and dismissed the O.A. by order dated 25.02.2014. 4. Questioning the same, M.Somulu filed W.P.No.30074 of 2016. During the pendency of the writ petition, M.Somulu died, and the Petitioner was brought on record as his legal representative. This Court by its orders dated 30.07.2019 allowed the writ petition setting aside the order of Tribunal to the extent of requirement of seventh class qualification with liberty to the Petitioner to submit representation along with caste certificate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and on such representation, the Respondents were directed to pass appropriate orders thereon. Consequent thereto, 5 the Petitioner submitted a representation and the present impugned order was passed rejecting the claim for regularization vide impugned order on the ground that it is not possible to consider the regularization of M.Somulu as he had retired from service and G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 provides for regularization only from the prospective date. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Government after examining the case of the Petitioner, had opined to the competent authority that it is not feasible for consideration of the case of M.Somulu since he had retired and there is a specific mention in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 that the NMR/Full time contingent employees should be made with prospective effect only. Pursuant thereto, consequential proceedings were issued by Respondent No.2 on 12.12.2003 and the same were forwarded to Respondent Nos.3, 4, and 5, and finally, the 5th Respondent passed the impugned proceedings dated 16.12.2023. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the factum of the death of M.Somulu occurred during the pendency of the writ petition and the Respondents, having not raised an 6 objection to this effect, cannot reject the case of the Petitioner by way of the impugned order. He further submits that the fact that the husband of the Petitioner-M.Somulu was appointed in 1985 after being sponsored through the employment exchange, his continuous service in the Respondent-Department is not in doubt, and in that view, merely that M.Somulu had expired is known ground for rejecting the case of the Petitioner for regularization. 8. It is further stated that as per the G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, the obligation to process the regularization is on the Department/Government, and there is no requirement for the employee to submit any representation. The impugned rejection is virtually a validation of the inaction of the Respondents to regularise the services of the Petitioner within the time obligated under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Sri S.Raju would submit that the impugned order does not warrant any interference as the same aligns with G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. It is further stated that the Government cannot micromanage every individual’s regularization, and a person aggrieved about non- regularization of his service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, who has approached the authorities at an earlier 7 point of time and not at the stage of retirement of services. It is also stated that the Respondent-authorities cannot act beyond G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, and therefore, the impugned order could not be interfered with. 10. Heard Sri S.Syam Sunder Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I. 11. Firstly, the G.O.Ms.No.212 enables the appointing authorities to regularise individuals who have completed five (5) years of minimum service as on 25.11.1993 on certain conditions. The conditions are not in issue in the impugned proceedings, but the only reason assigned is that the Petitioner had retired from service and hence could not be regularised. As mentioned supra, the obligation to regularise as per the G.O.Ms.No.212 is on the appointing authority, and their delay in taking action for the regularisation of M.Somulu led to the retirement of the Petitioner and eventually his death. The relevant portion of the G.O.Ms.No.212 is extracted below; „Accordingly, Government after careful examination of the whole issue and in supersession of all previous orders on the subject including G. O. Ms. No. 193, General Administration Department, dated.14-03-1990 and keeping in view the above judgment of Supreme Court of India, have 8 formulated a scheme for regularization of services of the persons appointed on Daily Wage / NMR or on consolidated pay and are continuing on the date of commencement of the Act. Government accordingly decided that the services of such persons who worked continuously for a minimum period of 5 years and are continuing on 25-11- 1993 be regularized by the appointing authorities subject to fulfillment of the following conditions: 1. The Persons appointed should possess the qualification prescribed as per rules in force as on the date from which his/her services have to be regularized. 2. They should be within the age limits as on the date of appointment as NMR /Daily wage employee. 3. The rule of reservation wherever applicable will be followed and back-log will be set-off against future vacancies. 4. Sponsoring of candidates from Employment Exchange is relaxed. 5. Absorption shall be against clear vacancies of posts considered necessary to be continued as per work load excluding the vacancies already notified to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission / District Selection Committee. 6. In the case of Work charged Establishment, where there will be no clear vacancies, because of the fact that the expenditure on Work-charged is as fixed percentage of P.S. Charges and as soon as the work is over, the services of workcharged establishment will have to be terminated, they shall be adjusted in the other departments, District Offices provided there are clear vacancies of Last Grade Service.” 9 12. Apart from G.O.Ms.No.212, a constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi1, held that individuals who have been irregularly appointed and working for more than ten (10) years as on that date without intervention should be regularised as a one-time measure. The relevant paragraph 53 is extracted below; 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa11, R.N. Nanjundappa12 and B.N. Nagarajan8 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 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 10 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. 13. The emphasised part of the above judgment obligates the State Government and its instrumentalities to regularise employees working for over ten (10) years as on that date to be regularised. The inaction on the part of the State Government and its instrumentalities cannot be a ground to deny M.Somulu from being regularised from the date of his entitlement. 14. Secondly, M.Somulu had retired from service by the date of filing the W.P.No.30074 of 2016 questioning the order of rejection of O.A.No.1831 of 2016 for regularisation. The Respondents filed a counter affidavit, but the issue that regularisation cannot be considered in view of the retirement of M.Somulu was never urged, even though the said plea was available to them at that point of time. This Court had disposed of the W.P.No.30074 of 2016, taking note of the objections in the counter affidavit i.e, lack of educational qualification and overage, directed the 11 Respondents to consider the case of M.Somulu for regularisation without insisting on the 7th class certificate and taking note of the caste certificate filed therein vide memo. 15. The scope of reconsideration of the case of M.Somulu for regularisation can only be within the said direction, and it is not open to the Respondent authorities to raise new grounds and restart the cycle of litigation afresh. It is to be noted that if this action is permitted to continue, there can never be an end to litigation. The concluding part of the order in W.P.No.30074 of 2016 is extracted below; “For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed in part, setting aside the order of the Tribunal, dated 25.02.2014, passed in O.A.No.1831 of 2011, to the extent of insistence on the qualification of seventh class, and with liberty to the second petitioner herein to submit representation, by enclosing a copy of the Caste Certificate, before the competent authority, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If any such representation is submitted, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders be passed/appropriate action be taken, strictly in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.” 16. Thirdly, apart from the objections raised in the initial round of litigation, i.e, age and qualification, no other objection was 12 urged. The criteria for regularisation as per G.O.Ms.No.212 are specified in paragraph No.2 thereof, and as the Petitioner meets all the criteria, especially in the light of adjudication with regard to age and qualification, there is no reason for the Respondents not to regularise the services of M.Somulu. 17. To avoid further rounds of litigation as to the date of regularisation, the date of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 shall be taken as the date of regularisation of M.Somulu for the fixation of pay for pension purposes. The Respondents shall pay pension from the date of retirement of M.Somulu to the Petitioner. 18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions; (i) The Respondents shall fix the date of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 as the date of regularisation of M.Somulu for the fixation of pay for pension purposes. (ii) The Respondents shall pay pension from the date of retirement of M.Somulu to the Petitioner. (iii) No order as to costs. 13 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 07.10.2025 KLP