APHC010199872024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 10229/2024 Between: 1. B V R V H PRASAD, S/O. VENKATA SRIRAMADAS, AGED ABOUT. 59 YEARS, W/AS BILL COLLECTOR, UNDI GRAMAPANCHAYATH, UNDI VILLAGE AND MANDAL W.G. DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AT ELURU. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PR, BHEEMAVARAM DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, , W.G. DISTRICT AT ELURU. 5. AKIVIDU GRAMAPANCHAYAT, ,REP BY ITS SECRETARY, AKIVIDU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, W.G. DISTRICT 6. UNDI GRAMAPANCHAYAT, ,REP BY ITS SECRETARY, UNDI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, W.G. DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G SEENA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES IV 2 The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “Pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No. A6/e1815445/2020 dt.09.09.2020 of the 4th respondent in rejecting the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services as illegal improper unjust and arbitrary and contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court and G.O.Ms.No. 212 dt.22.04.1994 and set aside the same and further declare that the petitioner is entitle for regularization as done in the case of similarly situated employees with all consequential benefits seniority and monetary from the date on which the petitioner has completed 5 years of service from 08.02.1984 and Pass”. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent has sanctioned the posts vide orders dated 10.05.1983 and the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis in the said post. As per the resolution of the 5th respondent, the petitioner has joined the duty and working continuously. While so, the petitioner has submitted a representation for regularization of his service as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, but the 4th respondent rejected the case of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 09.09.2020. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as follows: “Therefore, the individual working as part time employee but not on daily wage basis/NMR or on temporary basis, Sri B.V.R.V.H. Prasad, part time Electrician, Gram Panchayat, Akiveedu is informed that his case cannot be considered for regularization of his services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 F&P, dated 22.04.1994 as he was appoint as part time employee in Akiveedu Gram Panchayat, and G.O.Ms.No.212, F&P, Dated 22.04.1994 is for regularizing NMR/Daily wage workers only. The individual is hereby informed accordingly.” 3. The above said observations in the impugned order is contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.330 dated 23.09.2011 issued by the Government, wherein the 3 Government has considered the request made by the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj & Rural Employment, Hyderabad, with regard to regularization of services of (25) part-time employees who have completed 10 years of service in terms of G.O.(P).No.112 Finance (PC-III) Department; dated 23.07.1997 working in the various Gram Panchayats in Krishna District. But, surprisingly in the instant case, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner working as part-time employee, but not as daily wage worker/NMR and the same is contrary to G.O.Ms.330 dated 23.09.2011 issued by the Government and also the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaggo v. Union of India1. 4. Reply to the said contention, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has submitted that the above said G.O., which was referred by the petitioner is pertaining to part-time employees of Panchayat Raj & Rural Development working in the Krishna District and the same cannot be applicable to the petitioner since he was working in West Godavari District. 5. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.330 dated 23.09.2011, as the said G.O. has issued particularly to the part-time employees working in various Panchayats and as the petitioner is also working continuously in the Panchayat from the year 1985, the petitioner is also entitled for consideration of his case as per the above said G.O. 6. Accordingly, impugned order passed by the respondents is set aside by remanding the matter to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.330 dated 23.09.2011 and pass appropriate 1 AIR 2025 SC 296 4 orders within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date:28.01.2026 KNN 5 247 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH W.P.No.10229 of 2024 28.01.2026 KNN