APHC010101592019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3549] MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 4562/2019 Between: 1. G. CH.VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC WORKING AS WATCHMAN, I.S.L.M.C.DIVISION NO.1, DOWLASWARAM, RAJAHMAHENDRAVARAM EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTOOR DISTRICT. 2. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, ADMIN WING, I AND CAD, VIJ AYAWADA, 3. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, I.S.L.M.C.CIRCLE TUNI, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, I.S.L.M.C.DIVISION NO.1, DOWLASWARAM, RAJAHMAHENDRAVARAM EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRIMAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV 2. GP FOR SERVICES II 2 The Court made the following Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela) Heard, Mr.Sriman, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-II, for the respondents. 1. The Writ Petition is filed by the unsuccessful applicant in O.A.No.1099 of 2018 wherein it was dismissed. 2. The case of the petitioner, who is the applicant in the O.A., is that he studied upto 7th class (fail) and he was appointed as a Watchman on 22.10.1979 vide proceedings No.75, dated 22.10.1979 issued by the Executive Engineer, C.A.D. Division, Nandigama, Krishna District and the candidature of the petitioner was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The petitioner worked as such for ten years at Nandigama and, thereafter, posted at Pulichintala Project Circle at Vijayawada and after one year, he was posted at the office of Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Vijayawada on 15.06.1990 and thereupon posted in the office of Machilipatnam Division of Cyclone Emergency Reconstruction Project (CERP Unit), Dowleswaram and, on 01.06.1995, he was posted in the office of V.Y.P.P. Unit, Dowleswaram Unit, Tarakarama Division. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.184, dated 28.06.1991, to convert the contingent employees into regular posts in the Last Grade Service and in pursuance of the said G.O., the 3rd respondent issued proceedings No.AB/AC.IV/C1/464-M, dated 04.10.1997, converting into Last Grade Services and, to that effect, proceedings were issued by the 5th respondent on 18.10.1997 and, thereafter, the pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.740/- per month in the scale 740-15-950-20-1150 with effect from 01.06.1991 and also sanctioned annual grade increment of Rs.15/- raising pay from Rs.740/- to Rs.755/- with effect from 01.06.1992. However, the said proceedings were not implemented, against which, O.A.No.4995 of 2008 is filed, seeking a direction to release the increments due to the petitioner. However, the O.A., was 3 dismissed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal’) on the ground that the Government, vide Circular Memo No.16921/125/A2/PCIII-97, dated 10.09.1997, stated that all the previous orders issued on regularization of full time contingent employees stand cancelled and regularization, if any, has to be made in accordance with the orders issued in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. The purport of the said G.O. is that the services of all the persons who had worked continuously for a minimum period of five years and were continuing as on 25.11.1993 be regularized by the appointing authorities subject to fulfillment of the following conditions: 1) The persons appointed should possess the qualifications 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 on the date of appointment as NMR/Daily Wage employee. 3) The rule of reservation wherever applicable will be followed and backlog 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 Commission. 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 at a fixed percentage of P.S. charges and as soon as the work is over, the services of the work charged 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. 4. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the affidavit is that the 3rd respondent, vide proceedings 4 No.AB/AC.IV/C1/4422-M, dated 21.03.1995, had regularized similarly situated persons, namely T.Appanna and M.Malleswara Rao, who studied upto 5th class only. Despite the same, the 2nd respondent, vide letter No.ENC/IW/P&M/EE.III/W2/21180/2010 PF2, dated 30.04.2012, requested the respondents 3 and 4 to furnish the Date of Birth proof, qualification certificates, verification report on the education qualifications, self declaration of read and write in any one language, initial appointment orders, etc., of the individuals for the purpose of regularization, but no action was taken by the respondents 3 and 4. For the inaction on part of the respondents, in regularizing the services of the petitioner, the O.A., in question was filed, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on 21.06.2018. 5. The 4th respondent filed counter-affidavit, not denying the orders converting the petitioner into regular last grade service vide G.O.Ms.No.184, dated 28.06.1991 and the consequential proceedings dated 04.10.1997 and issuance of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. It is submitted by the 4th respondent in the counter that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3702 of 2006, A.Manjula Bhashini and others v. The Managing Director, A.P. Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited and another1, held that the cut off date 25.11.1993 specified in the first proviso to Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Regularization of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994, for determination of eligibility of daily wage employees to be considered for regularization is not arbitrary, irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the temporary employees are eligible for regularization of service, if they put up minimum required continuous service i.e., 5 to 10 years respectively subject to fulfillment of other conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 for regularization of services on Daily Wage/NMR/Consolidated Pay Workers. 1 2009 (5) SLR 382 5 6. It is averred in the counter that the 2nd respondent had called for the proposals regarding the particulars of eligible employees for regularization of services of part time and full time employees working for 25-30 years in Indira Sagar Polavaram Project (Now Polavaram Irrigation Project Unit) vide Government Memo No.15603/Ser.V/2010-4, dated 10.10.2011. In response to the said request, a report was submitted, wherein the petitioner was placed at serial No.3 and that 4 full time contingent workers, 9 part time contingent workers are having 5/10 years of service as on 25.11.1993 and continuing as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. It was further stated that as per Andhra Pradesh Last Grade Services Rules, the qualification prescribed for the post of Office Subordinate is 7th Class pass and all the above workers, including the petitioner, are having below 7th class pass qualification and not eligible for regularization of their services as Office Subordinates available in the circles. 7. At paragraph No.15 of the counter, it is stated that the petitioner is very much aware of the remuneration and other service conditions and accepted the employment. Now, the request for regularization is against the existing policy of the Government as well as the latest Apex Court judgment. Hence, the petitioner’s claim for regularization is not tenable and sustainable. 8. After hearing both the counsels and verifying the facts and circumstances narrated above, the question for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994?” 9. The facts, regarding the petitioner joining into service and also working/continuing as on the cut off date mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.212, i.e., 25.11.1993, are not in dispute. It is the case of the petitioner that he studied 7th Class (fail), but at the time of appointment, the Last Grade Service Rules were not pressed into service and the petitioner was appointed in the year 1979 vide proceedings No.75, dated 22.10.1979 as Watchman and, since then, discharging his duties as such as stated in the O.A. 6 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that at the time of appointment of the petitioner for the post of Watchman, 5th class pass was the requisite qualification. 11. On the other hand, the submission of the learned Government Pleader is that, as on the date of filing of O.A., the petitioner is not having 7th class qualification and, hence, the regularization was denied to the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. 12. The arguments of the learned Government Pleader are not tenable. The respondents are aware that the petitioner was appointed as Watchman. Even as per the Andhra Pradesh Last Grade Service Rules, 1992, the requisite qualification for Watchman is pass in V Class or its equivalent examination. The petitioner has completed nearly 15 years of service as on the date of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 and entitled for regularization as per judicial pronouncements in respect of having continuous service. 13. There is no rebuttal on the part of the respondents that as on the date on which the petitioner was entitled for regularization, he was possessing the requisite qualification i.e., 5th class pass for the post of Watchman. Further, the stipulation of 7th class for the post of Office Subordinate was introduced only in the year 2007 vide G.O.Ms.No.227, General Administration (Services.B) Department, dated 12.04.2007. Hence, the respondents cannot fasten the said qualification at the time of regularization which is illegal, unjust and also arbitrary. 14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the continuous service rendered by the petitioner from 1979 to till the date of his retirement itself is a qualification for his services being regularized. The action of the respondents, having allowed the petitioner to discharge his duties and not regularizing his services on the ground of not having 7th class qualification is not tenable, much less, when the said qualification of 7th class is introduced only in the year 2007 for the post of Office Subordinate. Hence, the contention of the petitioner for regularization of service by taking into consideration the services 7 rendered by him till date, cannot be denied in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation2. 15. The Court finds force in the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that rejection of regularization of the service of petitioner on the ground of not having 7th class qualification is wholly untenable and irrational, in the light of the judgments relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel in the case of B.Srinivasulu v. Nellore Municipal Corporation3, wherein it was held that “the services of the appellants therein to be regularized with effect from the date of completing their five years continuous service, as was laid down by this Court in Collector v. M.L.Singh4”. 16. 16. In view of the above findings, the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1099 of 2018, dated 21.06.2018, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition, is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall be entitled for pension and pensionary benefits only. 17. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J __________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 08-09-2025 BMS/Tsy 2 (1990) 1 SCC 361 3 (2021) 13 SCC 460 4 (2009) 8 SCC 480