APHC010465762023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.24870 OF 2023 Between: 1. The Deputy Director, B.C. Welfare Department, re-designated as B.C. Welfare and Empowerment Officer, Guntur District, at Guntur, and others. ...Petitioners AND B.Sukanya, D/o.Veeraiah, aged about 61 years, Occ.Hostel Welfare Officer (Retired), Govt. B.C. Girls Hostel, Machavaram, Guntur District, R/o.Door No.22-9-481, 8th Lane, Bharathpet, Amaravathi Road, Guntur. ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : G.P. for Services–II Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.B.Ravi Chandra The Court made the following ORDER: (per Hon’ble NJS,J) Challenging the order dated 01.4.2019 passed by the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in O.A. No.444 of 2019, the State filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard Mr.Kocharlakota Ramalingeswara Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services–II representing the writ petitioners. Also heard the learned counsel for the respondent. 2 WP_24870_2023 3. The respondent/applicant filed the above mentioned the O.A., seeking to declare the action of the respondents therein/writ petitioners in not computing her service from the date of joining into service with effect from 17.12.1986 for the purpose of qualifying service for sanction of full service pension and computing her service only with effect from 31.07.2001 on the ground that her services have been regularized prospectively as illegal, arbitrary and for consequential directions to declare that the pre-service rendered for about fifteen (15) years as on the date of regularization of her service has to be computed for the purpose of sanction of full pension. 4. The undisputed facts are that the applicant was initially appointed as a cook on daily wage basis in December 1986 in Government BC Girls Hostel, Guntur. In view of her continuous service, by virtue of G.O.Ms. No.212, Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.4.1994, her services were regularized vide G.O.Ms. No.44, Backward Classes Welfare (A2) Department, dated 31st July, 2001. In terms of G.O.Ms.212, dated 22.4.1994, the persons working continuously for a minimum period of five years and continuing as on 25.11.1993 shall be regularized by the appointing authorities, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. The petitioner approached the learned Tribunal stating she had completed five (5) years of continuous service by the cut-off date i.e., 25.11.1993 and instead of regularizing her service at least from the cut-off date, the respondent authorities arbitrarily regularized her service from 31.7.2001 giving a go-bye to her fifteen (15) years service. 5. The learned Tribunal after considering the matter in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of the erstwhile common High Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. N.Venkaiah 1 was pleased to dispose of the O.A., with a direction to the respondents/writ petitioners to 1 2018 (4) ALT 6 (DB) 3 WP_24870_2023 extend the benefit of her past service from 25.11.1993 onwards for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits only. The learned Tribunal also made it clear that the respondent/applicant is not entitled for any monetary benefits prior to retirement. 6. Though the learned Government Pleader sought to impress upon this Court that the order under challenge is not sustainable, we are not inclined to accept the same, in view of the undisputed position that the respondent/applicant had put in continuous service of fifteen (15) years prior to issuance of G.O. Ms. No.44, dated 31st July, 2001. Further, the order of the learned Tribunal based on the decision in N.Venkaiah’s case reflects the correct legal position. In view of the same, this Court see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal. 7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. At this juncture, learned Government Pleader seeks three months’ time for implementation of the order under challenge. However, considering the aspect that the learned Tribunal had passed the impugned order in the year 2019, two months’ time is granted for implementation of the said order. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J _____________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J October 06, 2025 vasu