IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3907 OF 2020 Between: 1. R.Sivanageswara Rao, S/o Venkateswarlu, 53 years. Lab Assistant, ZPHS, Penamaluru Krishna District 2. S.Nancharaiah, S/o Ankalu, 59 years, Rec.Assistant, ZPHS, Maliavolu Krishna District 3. Y.Srikrishna, S/o Koteswara Rao, 51 years. Record Assistant, ZPHS, Kalavapamula Krishna District 4. TV Nancharaiah, S/o Saibabu, 34 years. Library Assistant, ZPHS, Telaprolu, Krishna District 5. M.Venkateswara Rao, S/o Nageswara Rao, 56 years. Record Assistant, ZPHS, Etimoga Krishna District 6. P.Srinivasa Rao, S/o Madhava Rao, 49 years. Library Assistant, ZPHS, Vanapamula Krishna District 7. T.Papaiah, S/o Venkatesu, 50 years. Record Assistant, ZPHS, Moturuz Krishna District 8. N.Venkateswara Rao, S/o Sriramulu, 52 years. Library Assistant, ZPHS, Vuyyuru Krishna District 9. K.Bhaskara Rao, S/o Venkaiah, 59 years. Gardener, ZPHS, Yelamarru Krishna District J.Ramakrishna, S/o Viraswamy, 52 years, NW, ZPHS, Tamirisa KWN Chalapathi Rao, S/o Virabhadra Rao, 53 years. Library Assistant, ZPHS, Tamirisa Krishna District 10. 11. -4' 4^ P.Sitaramaiah, S/o Someswara Rao, 51 years, Attender, MPDO OfiCe, Gudiwada Krishna District B.Sambasiva Rao, S/o Jamaiaiah, eOyears, NW, ZPHS, Arutegalapadu Krishna District 12. r "s. 13. P.Yesupadam, S/o Vandanam, 56 years, ZPHS, Yelamarru Krishna District 14. K.Sivaraju, S/o John Papaiah, 56 years. Record Assistant, ZPHS, Kanumoiu Krishna District 15. A.Anjaiah, S/o Subba Rao, 55 years, NW, RWS Sub division Gudivada Krishna District 16. T.Koteswara Rao, S/o Lakshmipati, 59 years, Attender, ZPHS, Arugaiuna Krishna District 17. L.Nagamaileswsara Rao, S/o Kunnaiah, 53 years. Lab Assistant, ZPHS, Tamirisa Krishna District 18. B.Venkateswara Rao, Chintaiah, 58 years, Attender, PR Sub Division, Gudivada Krishna District 19. / K.Chakradhara Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 56 years. Lab Assistant, ZPHS, Rudrapaka Krishna District 20. M.V.Ramana, S/o Su9bba Rao, 54 years. Lab Assistant, ZPHS, Vuyyuru Krishna District 21. R.gopala Rao, S/o Venkaiah, 52 years. Library Assistant, ZPHS, Musunuru Krishna District 22. N.Raju, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 57 years. Record Assistant, ZPHS, Pedasanagaliu 23. K.Ramana, S/o Thirupathi Rao, 56 years, NW, ZPHS, Kannevidu Krishna District 24. K.Venkata Rao, S/o Narayana, 53 years. Record Assistant, ZPHS, Chintalapudi Krishna District 25. Ch.Ramu, S/o Bhadraiah, 53 years, Record Assistant, ZPHS, Jaggayyapet Krishna District 26. SK. Mahaboob Sharif, S/o MD Saleha, 55 years. Record Assistant, ZPHS, Pamarru Krishna District 27. R.Anjaneyulu, S/o Lakshmaiah, 59 years, Attender rws Sub Division, Vijayawada Krishna District Ch.Ramesh Babu, S/o Nageswara Rao, 56 years. Typist, MPDO Ofice, Mylavaram Krishna District N.Yedukondalu, S/o Ganapathi, 56 years, Attender, MPDO Office, Pamidimukkala Krishna District KTV Prasad, S/o Kutumba Rao, 54 years. Record Assistant, ZPHS, Godavarru Krishna District R.Kanakadurgaiah, S/o Jagannadam 58 years, Attender, EE Office, Vijayawada Krishna District R.Venkateswara Rao, S/o Radha Krishna Murthy, 54 years. Lab Assistant, ZPHS, Kapileswarapuram Krishna District K.Srinivas, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 57 years. Record Assistant, ZPHS, Kapileswarapuram Krishna District 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. B.Kapoor, S/o Magatha, 56 years, Attender, ZPHS, Mulapadu Krishna District 35. S.V.Krishna Rao, S/o Venkaiah, 59 years. Lab Assistant, ZPHS, Mylavaram Krishna District 36. M.Venkateswara Rao, S/o Mohana Rao, 57 years, Attender, ZPHS, Putrela Krishna District 37. P.Rameshbabu, S/o Chintaiah, 57 years,^^ Lab Assistant, ZPHS, Guduru Krishna District 38. - ^ " T.Anjaneyulu, S/o Pitchaiah, 57 years, NW, ZPHS, Peddavaram Krishna District 39. 'f B.Krishnamurthy, S/o Rangamani, 50 years, NW, ZPHS, Peddavaram Krishna District 40. Petitioners AND State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance &. Planning Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District 2. 3. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, No. 12-47, P.V.S. EMPIRE, Near Pratur Cross Road Tadepalli, Guntur District 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 particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering and regularizing the services of the Petitioners from 25.11.1993 the date when they are actually eligible and further consider the services of the Petitioners for the purpose of increments and notional pay fixation and also for pension and pensionary benefits and for further promotions. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 — Petition under Section 15^ 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 consider and regularizing the services of the Petitioners from 25.11.1993 the date when they are actually eligible pendi ig disposal of the above writ petition ^ Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.SRIKANTH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010058692020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3907/2020 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) R Sivanageswara Rao and Others AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitloner(S): 1.MSRIKANTH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP) The Court made the following Order; The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “ to issue a Writ, Order or direction particuiariy one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus deciaring the action of the Respondents in not considering and reguiarising the services of the Petitioners from 25.11.1993 the date when they are actuaiiy eiigible and further consider the services of the Petitioners for the purpose of increments and notionai pay fixation and aiso for pension and pensionary benefits and for further promotions....” 2 Brief facts of the case are that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994 as well as G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 23.07.1997 by which the Government took a policy decision to regularise all the persons who have been appointed on daily wage basis as and when they complete five years of service as on 25.11.1993 and in so far as the part time employees are concerned, they would be regularised when they complete ten years of service as on 25.11.1993. The petitioners have been appointed daily wage basis and they have completed more than the required years of service required as per G.O.Ms.No.212 as on the cut off date is 25.11.1993. Though the petitioners were fully eligible and qualified to be regularised with effect from 25.03.1993, they have been regularised with effect from 25.08.1995. The petitioners made representations to the respondents to regularise their services with effect from 25.11.1993, but the respondents * have not taken any action. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. on The 3"'^ respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the petitioners regularized as per G.O.Ms.No.212. Further, the contention of the petitioners that their services were regularized in the year 1995 is not correct, as the petitioners’ services were regularized in various dates. It is further stated that 3. services were v«r" 3 the petitioners are not entitled to regularize their services from the date when they have completed five years of service i.e., cut-off date 25.11.1993, as the Government have specifically mentioned service regularization is effected “from the date of issue of GO’s". Further, the Government have issued Memo N0.573/225/A3/PC.I1I/97, dated 01.09.1997 by regularizing the services under G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning Department, dated 22.04.1994 with « prospective effect. Therefore, effecting service regularization of the petitioners with prospective effect i.e., from the date of issuance of orders is correct and valid. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to be regularized with effect from cut-off date i.e., 25.11.1993. Reply affidavit filed by the petitioner stating that the petitioners have completed more than ten years of service as on 25.11.1993 and therefore eligible for regularization with effect from the said date. If the period from 25.11.1993 to 25.08.1995 is not considered, then the petitioners would lose lot of benefits as the petitioners lose increments and other benefits. 4. Heard Mr.M.Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural 5. Development, for the respondents. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 6. 4 the decision of B.Srinivasulu vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation^ held that "a duty is cast upon the Government to regularise the persons as and when they complete five years of service as required under G.O.Ms.No.212, dt.22.04.1994.” He further submits that the petitioners are entitled to count the entire period from 25.11.1993 for calculation of qualifying service for the purpose of pensioVi and pensionary benefits. He further submits that the question of affecting any person, if the seniority of the petitioners is re-fixed is also untrue, as the petitioners are eligible for increments, pay and for enhanced pension and the question of affecting any person would not arise at all and there are no third party rights affected. He further submits that this Court vide order dated 02.05.2018 passed order in W.P.No.33936 of 2011 held that the plea of delay cannot be taken and directed to regularize the services from 25.11.1993 without any monetary benefits basing on the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court and submits that the present petitioners are also‘similarly situated persons and are entitled for retrospective regularization for the purpose of notional pay and for pensionary benefit from 25.11.1993. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on the decision of a learned Division Bench of composite High Court at Telangana in P.Lingamma and others vs. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary 7. ^2015 LawSuit(SC) 1733 5 and others^, wherein it was while relying on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in District Collector Vs. M.L.Singh , held as follows; "In the light of this authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court, as recently as in August, 2015, on the issue of regularization of services under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, we have o hesitation in holding that the Tribunal erred in denying relief to the petitioners herein insofar as their claim for regularisation from an anterior date was concerned. They would therefore be entitled to regularization of their services from the date they completed five years of service but would not be entitled to any monetary benefits in terms of arrears of pay. They would however be eligible for notional fixation of pay and seniority. ” To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and others vs. P.Lingamma and others'^, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petitions filed by the government and directed the respondents to implement the impugned Judgment and orders of the concerned High Court. 8. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to allow the writ petition. learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, if the cases of the petitioners were considered, the entire seniority list of various cadres will be affected. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 9. Per Contra, ^ W.P.No.41797 of 2015 ^ (2009) 8 see 480 '’SLP.No.13813/2018, dated 23.07.2024 6 decision of B.S.Bajwa and another vs. State of Punjab and Others^, held that “the seniority list should not be reopened after a lapse of reasonable period as it would disturb the settled position which is unjustifiable”. He further submits that the petitioners without perusing the subject matter before the competent authority filed the present writ petition with false averments. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Perused the record. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the contention of the petitioners that they have completed more than five years of service required as per G.O.Ms.No.212 as on the cut off date is 25.11.1993 and they are eligible for regularization of their services with effect from 25.11.1993. Moreover, the respondents have also not disputed said fact. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and also the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.L.Singh’s case (supra 3), this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition, declaring that the petitioners are entitled to be regularised in service with effect from the date that they have completed five years continuous service. 12. ' (1998) 2 see 523 t Vr:^ 7 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services from the date they completed five years of service. It is made clear that the petitioners are not entitled to any monetary benefits in terms of arrears of pay. The petitioners however be eligible for notational fixation of pay and seniority. No costs. 14. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. -— The Principal Secretary, Finance & Planning Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, No. 12-47, P.V.S. EMPIRE, Near Pratur Cross Road Tadepalli, Guntur District. One CC to Sri M.Srikanth, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Dev, High Court of Andhfa Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. gi HIGH COURT DATED;30/01/2025 ORDER X 2 5 MAR 2D25 " <5.^ . Current Section ^SogSPATCt*^ WP.No.3907 of 2020 ta DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS