APHC010055152021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Rev.I.A.No.1 of 2021 in CONTEMPT CASE No: Rev.I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.20 Between: ACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY (ANU), REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, NARJUNA NAGAR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 1. K. VERASWAMY AT SOLOMON, S/O. PETHURU, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC. SKILLED PLUMBER, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. 2. MD. ALI,, S/O. SK. ADAM, AGED 47 YEARS, OCC. SKILLED PUMP ATTENDER, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. 3. D. VENKATESWARA RAO,, S/O. LAKSHMANA SWAMY, AGED 56 YEARS, OCC. SKILLED ELECTRICIAN (M),WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. 4. P. SIDDAIAH,, S/O. AKKAIAH, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC. NMR WATCHMAN, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. 5. T. RAMESH,, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED 53 YEARS, OCC. SKILLED ELECTRICIAN (M), WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Rev.I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.20129 of 2016 and CONTEMPT CASE No: 208 of 2021 Rev.I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.20129 of 2016 ACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY (ANU), REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, NARJUNA NAGAR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ……Review Petitioner / Respondent No.3 Vs. VERASWAMY AT SOLOMON, S/O. PETHURU, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC. SKILLED PLUMBER, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. MD. ALI,, S/O. SK. ADAM, AGED 47 YEARS, OCC. SKILLED PUMP ATTENDER, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, NKATESWARA RAO,, S/O. LAKSHMANA SWAMY, AGED 56 YEARS, OCC. SKILLED ELECTRICIAN (M),WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. P. SIDDAIAH,, S/O. AKKAIAH, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC. NMR WATCHMAN, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, . RAMESH,, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED 53 YEARS, OCC. SKILLED ELECTRICIAN (M), WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA f 2016 and REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, NARJUNA NAGAR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ……Review Petitioner / Respondent No.3 VERASWAMY AT SOLOMON, S/O. PETHURU, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC. SKILLED PLUMBER, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA MD. ALI,, S/O. SK. ADAM, AGED 47 YEARS, OCC. SKILLED PUMP ATTENDER, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, NKATESWARA RAO,, S/O. LAKSHMANA SWAMY, AGED 56 YEARS, OCC. SKILLED ELECTRICIAN (M),WORKING IN P. SIDDAIAH,, S/O. AKKAIAH, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC. NMR WATCHMAN, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, . RAMESH,, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED 53 YEARS, OCC. SKILLED ELECTRICIAN (M), WORKING IN AACHARYA 2 6. CH. VENKATESHWARA RAO,, S/O. VEERAIAH, AGED 48 YEARS, OCC. SKILLED ELECTRICIAN (M), WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. 7. T. PITCHAIAH,, S/O. T. VEERAIAH AGED YEARS, OCC. ASST. PLUMBER, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. 8. ANNAM VENKATESWARA RAO,, S/O. NAGAIAH, AGED 51 YEARS, OCC. SKILLED PUMP ATTENDER, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. 9. B. DEVA DASU,, S/O. BHUSHANAM, AGED 51 YEARS, OCC. SKILLED PUMP ATTENDER, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. 10. K. BHASKER REDDY,, S/O. VENKATA REDDY, AGED 48 YEARS, OCC. ELECTRICIAN, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. 11. M. BRAMAIAH,, S/O. SAMBAIAH, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC. SKILLED PUMP ATTENDER, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. 12. N. YESU DASU,, S/O. CHUKKAIAH, AGED 53 YEARS, OCC. SKILLED PUMP ATTENDER, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. 13. T. SURYANARAYANA,, S/O. SITHA RAMAIAH, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC. SKILLED ELECTRICIAN, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. 14. P. ROSAIAH,, S/O. YESOBU, AGED 53 YEARS, 0CC. SKILLED PUMP ATTENDER, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. 15. K. RAMI REDDY,, S/O. SAMBI REDDY, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC. SKILLED PUMP ATTENDER, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. 16. G. GANDHI,, S/O. G. ANANDHA RAO, AGED YEARS, OCC. WATCHMAN, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. 3 17. S. SUBRAMANAYAM,, S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC. SKILLED ELECTRICIAN, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. 18. A. DAYANANDAM,, S/O. YACOBU, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC. NMR WATCHMAN, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. 19. N. NARASIMAHA RAO,, S/O. SUBBAIAH, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC. NMR BUS CLEANER, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. 20. N. VEERAIAH,, S/O. PITCHAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC. SEMI SKILLED ELECTRICIAN, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. 21. N. KOTESWARA RAO,, S/O. POULAS, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC. NMR WATCHMAN, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. 22. N. SADANANDAM,, S/O. NALLA VENKAIAH, AGED 49 YEARS, OCC. SKILLED PUMP ATTENDER, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. 23. N. RAMULU,, S/O. N. ABRAHAM, AGED YEARS, OCC. CLEANER CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT, WORKING IN AACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR. ...Respondents / Writ Petitioner(S) 24. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, A.P.SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 25. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. …Respondents / Respondents 1 & 2 Counsel for the Review Petitioner(S): Mr.Ramachandra Rao Gurram Counsel for the Contemnor(S): Mr.N.Geethak Chowdary for Mr.M.Pitchaiah 4 The Court made the following common order: A learned Judge of this Court by an order dated 12.02.2020 disposed of the Writ Petition No.20129 of 2016 with a direction to the respondents therein to reckon services of the writ petitioners five years after their joining into service and award all consequential benefits, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 2. Seeking review of the said orders, the University filed the Review I.A.No.1 of 2021. Aggrieved by the non-implementation of the orders passed by the learned Judge, the writ petitioners filed C.C.No.208 of 2021. 3. Alleging non-implementation of the orders passed by the learned Judge, the writ petitioners filed C.C.No.208 of 2021. 4. In the writ petition, the following relief is sought for. “…to declare that the petitioners are entitled to count their entire pre-regularization service for the purpose of retirement and pensionary benefits under A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and these rules apply to the petitioners and they are entitled to the retirement benefits under these rules, ignoring the stipulation in the regularization proceedings contrary to the entitlement of the petitioners for retirement benefits under these rules and consequently direct the respondents to count pre-regularization service of the petitioners for the purpose of retirement and pensionary benefits under the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980 in view of Full Bench of decision in W.P.No.25260 of 2002 dated 18.09.2015……” 5 5. The learned Judge vide orders dated 12.02.2020, disposed of the writ petition and the relevant portion of the order is re-produced for reference Nos.3 and 4. “3. The counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court by virtue of the order dated 29.01.2020 in Writ Petition No.14944 of 2019, in similar circumstances, directed the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners by reckoning their respective service of five years from the date of joining as mentioned in the annexure of G.O.Ms.No.31, Finance (HR.III) Department, dated 28.02.2017. The counsel for the petitioners also submits that the services of the petitioners were regularized on 24.01.2009 and their pre-regularization services are not being counted for the purpose of retirement and consequential benefits. 4. Hence, in this case also, there shall be a direction to the respondents to reckon the services of the petitioners five years after their joining into service and award all consequential benefits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 6. Mr.Gurram Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel representing the review petitioner / University made submissions, inter alia, to the effect that order under review is liable to be set aside in view of the error apparent on the face of the record. Drawing the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.31, dated 28.02.2017 with reference to which, the relief to the writ petitioners was granted, he submits that the said G.O., sanctioning 143 supernumerary posts in Andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation Limited is not applicable to the employees working in the University. He further submits that the University is governed by its regulations and at any rate, the learned Judge erred in opining that in similar circumstances, W.P.No.14944 of 2019 was disposed of and passing the same order, as if the issue is identical. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the orders dated 15.10.2019 passed in the said writ 6 petition. He further submits that in view of filing of the review petition, the orders of the learned Judge were not implemented and there is no willful disobedience of the orders. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to allow the review petition and urges for dismissal of the Contempt Case. 7. On the other hand, Mr.Geetak Chowdary, learned counsel for the respondents / writ petitioners made submissions to the effect that the learned Judge had rightly granted directions to reckon the services of the writ petitioners five years from the date of joining into service and award all consequential benefits on the same analogy of granting the said benefit to the employees of A.P.Beverages Corporation Limited. He submits that there is no apparent error on the face of the record and the review petition is devoid of merits. He also contends that the respondents in the Contempt Case are liable to be punished for willful disobedience of the orders passed in the Writ Petition. 8. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record including the G.O.Ms.No.31 dated 28.02.2017 and orders passed in W.P.No.14944 of 2019. 9. At the outset, it may be appropriate to mention that both the order under review and the orders in W.P.No.14944 of 2019 are passed with reference to G.O.Ms.No.31 dated 28.02.2017. As pointed by the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the said G.O., was issued exclusively in respect of the 7 employees of the A.P.Beverages Corporation Limited, which is a State Government Corporation, whereas the review petitioner is a University and governed by the Universities Act, 1991 and its own Rules and Regulations. Therefore, the learned Judge’s reliance on the said G.O., which is not in respect of the University employees and not applicable to them, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the review petitioner, amounts an error apparent on the face of the record. Further, even the order in W.P.No.14944 of 2019, is concerning the employees of the said Corporation, but not in the case of employees of University. Therefore, the order under review is not sustainable and the review petition deserves to be allowed. 10. Accordingly, the order dated12.02.2020 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to file. 11. As the order under review is recalled and the writ petition is restored, the Contempt Case is closed. In view of the disposal of the review petition, all the miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed. _____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 05.02.2026 BLV 8 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Rev.I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.20129 of 2016 and CONTEMPT CASE No: 208 of 2021 Dt: 05.02.2026 BLV