APHC010280602022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY,THE TWENTY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT:THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 357/2022 W.P.(AT) No.347 of 2022 Between: 1. CH.SRINIVASA REDDY,, S/O PEDAMALLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC, WORK INSPECTOR, 0/0 P.R.SUB DIVISION, ,R/O GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. K.RAMESH,, S/O VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC, WORK INSPECTOR, 0/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, GUNTUR,R/O GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. E.DASARADHARAMAIAH,, S/O VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC, WORK INSPECTOR, 0/O P.R DIVISION, GUNTUR, R/O GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. K.SAMBASIVA RAO,, S/O. VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC, WORK INSPECTOR,O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, TENALI,R/O TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. SK.ABDUL NAYEEM,, S/O RAHMAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OCC, WORK INSPECTOR, 0/O P.R. SUB DIVISION. TENALI,R/O TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. Y.SRIDHAR RAO,, S/O RANGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC, WORK INSPECTOR, O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, VEMURU, R/O VEMURU, GUNTUR DISTRICT. W.P(AT) No 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 34 Along with WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 357/2022 W.P.(AT) No.347 of 2022 CH.SRINIVASA REDDY,, S/O PEDAMALLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC, WORK INSPECTOR, 0/0 P.R.SUB DIVISION, ,R/O GUNTUR DISTRICT. K.RAMESH,, S/O VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC, WORK INSPECTOR, 0/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, GUNTUR,R/O GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. E.DASARADHARAMAIAH,, S/O VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC, WORK INSPECTOR, 0/O P.R DIVISION, GUNTUR, R/O GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. K.SAMBASIVA RAO,, S/O. VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC, WORK INSPECTOR,O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, TENALI,R/O TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. SK.ABDUL NAYEEM,, S/O RAHMAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OCC, ORK INSPECTOR, 0/O P.R. SUB DIVISION. TENALI,R/O TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. Y.SRIDHAR RAO,, S/O RANGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC, WORK INSPECTOR, O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, VEMURU, R/O VEMURU, GUNTUR DISTRICT. RC,J W.P(AT) Nos. 347 &357 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI FROM APAT NO: 347/2022 WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 357/2022 CH.SRINIVASA REDDY,, S/O PEDAMALLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC, WORK INSPECTOR, 0/0 P.R.SUB DIVISION, GUNTUR K.RAMESH,, S/O VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC, WORK INSPECTOR, 0/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, GUNTUR,R/O GUNTUR, E.DASARADHARAMAIAH,, S/O VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC, WORK INSPECTOR, 0/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, GUNTUR, R/O GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. K.SAMBASIVA RAO,, S/O. VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC, WORK INSPECTOR,O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, SK.ABDUL NAYEEM,, S/O RAHMAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OCC, ORK INSPECTOR, 0/O P.R. SUB DIVISION. TENALI,R/O TENALI, Y.SRIDHAR RAO,, S/O RANGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC, WORK INSPECTOR, O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, VEMURU, R/O RC,J W.P(AT) Nos. 347 &357 of 2022 2 7. D.CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY,, S/O VENKAT REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC, WORK INSPECTOR,O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, TENALI,R/O TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 8. G.VASUDEVA RAO,, S/O NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC, WORK INSPECTOR, O/O P.R.P.I.U.SUB DIVISION, REPALLE, RIO REPALLE, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 9. K.NAGALINGESWARA RAO,, S/O SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC, WORK INSPEETOR,O/O P.R. SUB DIVISION, REPALLE,R/O REPALLE, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE ENGINERINCHIEF, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, STATE OF AP, VASUDA COMPLEX, GOLLAPUDI ROAD, VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE OF A P, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT 15 FLOOR, 2ND BLOCK, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ CIRCLE OFFICE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): pleased to declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the applicants from the date of completion of 10 years services in the existing vacancies as held by the Honble High Court in WP No 24377/2007 as confirmed in the WA No 782/2010 and rejecting the same by the 4th respondent in Proc.No.A3/WP(AT)-347/2022 dated 20.08.2025, as illegal void and contrary to the articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and set aside the 4th respondent in Proc.No.A3/WP(AT)-347/2022 dated RC,J W.P(AT) Nos. 347 &357 of 2022 3 20.08.2025, with a further direction the respondents to regularize the services of the applicants in the existing vacancies from the date of completion of 10 years of service in terms of Judgment in WP No 27217/2017 as confirmed in WA No 782/2010 and WP No 17217/2017 dt19.09.2017 and pass Main Prayer amended/substituted as per Court Order dated 10.12.2025 vide IA No.1 of 2025 in WP (A.T.) No.347 of 2022. IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Applicants to file Single Original Application in the interest of Justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased the main prayer in W.P.(AT) 347/2022,be amended FROM: pleased to declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the applicants from the date of completion of 10 years services in the existing vacancies as held by the Honble High Court in WP No 24377/2007 as confirmed in the WA No 782/2010 as illegal void and contrary to the articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and further direct the respondents to regularize the services of the applicants in the existing vacancies from the date of completion of 10 years of service in terms of Judgment in WP No 27217/2017 as confirmed in WA No 782/2010 and WP No 17217/2017 dtl9. 09 .2017 and pass such other order or orders. TO: pleased to declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the applicants from the date of completion of 10 years services in the existing vacancies as held by the Honble High Court in WP No 24377/2007 as confirmed in the WA No 782/2010 and rejecting the same by the 4“’ respondent in Proc.No.A3/WP(AT)-347/2022 dated: 20.08.2025, as illegal void and contrary to the articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and set aside the the 4^'' respondent Proc.No.A3/WP(AT)-347/2022 dated:in IK 20.08.2025, with a further direction the respondents to regularize the services of the applicants in the existing vacancies from the date of completion of 10 years of service in RC,J W.P(AT) Nos. 347 &357 of 2022 4 terms of Judgment in WP No 27217/2017 as confirmed in WA No 782/2010 and WP No 17217/2017 dtl9. 09 .2017 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave to the respondent to file Counter Affidavit and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T V V KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES IV 2. GP FOR SERVICES I W.P(AT) No.357 of 2022 Between: 1. K.VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O VENKATARAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OCC. WORK INSPECTOR,O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, KOVVURU,R/O KOVVURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. N.RAVI VARMA,, S/O SURYANARAYANA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. WORK INSPECTOR, O/O P.R. SUB DIVISION, PALAKOL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, R/O PALAKOL, PALAKOL MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DIST. 3. BH.V.SURYANARAYANA RAJU,, S/O SATYANARAYANA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS , OCC. WORK INSPECTOR, O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, PALAKOL, R/O PALAKOL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. B.CHANTI,, S/O DHARMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OCC. WORK INSPECTOR,O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, BHIMADOLU , R/O BHIMADOLU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. RC,J W.P(AT) Nos. 347 &357 of 2022 5 5. D.V.SATYANARAYANA RAJU,, S/O KRISHNAM RAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. WORK INSPECTOR,O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, BHIMADOLU, R/O BHIMADOLU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. B.SURAYA RAO,, S/O MUSALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. WORK INSPECTOR, O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, BHIMADOLU,R/O BHIMADOLU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 7. CH.SIVA PRASADA RAJU,, S/O RAMAKRISHNA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC. WORK INSPECTOR, O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, TANUKU,R/O TANUKU , WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 8. P. SATYANANDA VARMA,, S/O SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,OCC. WORK INSPECTOR,O/O P.R. SUB DIVISION, TANUKU,R/O TANUKU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 9. P.VENKATESWARA RAO,, S/O NARASIMHARAO, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC. WORK INSPECTOR ,O/O P.R. SUB DIVISION, TANUKU, R/O TANUKU,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 10. N.V.V.S.S.PRASAD,, S/O SESHAGIRI RAO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. WORK INSPECTOR,O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, KOVVUR,R/O KOVVUR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 11. N.S.V.CHAKRAPANI,, S/O SUDHARSHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. WORK INSPECTOR,O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, BHIMADOLU,R/O BHIMADOLU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 12. M.L.N.S.RAMA RAJU,, S/O VENKATAPATHI RAJU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. WORK INSPECTOR,O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION,KOYYALAGUDEM, RIO KOYYALAGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 13. I.NARAYANA MURTHY,, S/O APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. WORK INSPECTOR, P.R. SUB-DIVISION, O/O AKIVEEDU, R/O AKIVEEDU,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. RC,J W.P(AT) Nos. 347 &357 of 2022 6 14. N.HANUMANTHA RAO,, S/O SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. WORK INSPECTOR,O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, UNDRAJAVARAM, R/O UNDRAJAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 15. V.LAKSHMANA RAO,, S/O VENKATESWARARAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. WORK INSPECTOR ,O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, AKIVEEDU, R/O AKIVEEDU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 16. B.DEVARAJU,, S/O RAMULU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS OCC. WORK INSPECTOR, O/O P.R.P.I.U, BHIMADOLU,R/O BHIMADOLU WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 17. R.SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O NARASIMHAM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. WORK INSPECTOR, O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, KOVVURU,R/O KOVVURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 18. K.DHANUNJAYA RAO,, S/O SADASHIVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. WORK INSPECTOR, O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, CHINTALAPUDI, R/O CHINTALAPUDI, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 19. M.MURALIMOHAN,, S/O RAMAMOHANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC. WORK INSPECTOR, O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, TADEPALLIGUDETN,R/O TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 20. D.N.SATYANARAYANA,, S/O RADHAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. WORK INSPECTOR, O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, PENUMANTRA,R/O PENUMANTRA, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 21. P.V.BALANANDA RAO,, S/O NARASINGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC. WORK INSPECTOR, O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, KOYYALAGUDEM,R/O KOYYALAGUDEM , WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 22. A.SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC. WORK INSPECTOR,O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION,UNDRAJAVARAM, R/O UNDRAJAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. RC,J W.P(AT) Nos. 347 &357 of 2022 7 23. A.RADHA KRISHNA,, S/O RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. WORK INSPECTOR, O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, UNDRAJAVARAM,R/O UNDRAJAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 24. N.V.S.NAGESWARA RAO,, S/O PERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. WORK INSPECTOR,O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, TADEPALLIGUDEM, RIO TADEPALLIGUDEM,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 25. I.V.K.VISWANADHA RAJU,, S/O NARASIMHA RAJU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. WORK INSPECTOR, O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION KOYYALAGUDEM,R/O KOYYALAGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 26. U.VENKATESWARA RAO,, S/O PADMANABHAM, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, TADEPALLIGUDEM,R/O TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 27. R.SRINIVASA RAJU,, S/O SHIVARAMA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. WORK INSPECTOR,O/O P.R.SUB DIG ISION, PALAKOL, W/O PALAKOL,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 28. A.UMAMAHESWARA RAO,, S/O BHIMA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. WORK INSPECTOR, O/O P.R.SUB DIVISION, NARASAPURAM, RIO NARASAPURAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 29. R.SATYANARAYANA RAJU,, S/O PALLAM RAJU,AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC. WORK INSPECTOR, O/O DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.R.DIVISION, TANUKU,R/O TANUKU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND RC,J W.P(AT) Nos. 347 &357 of 2022 8 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE ENGINERINCHIEF, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, STATE OF AP, VASUDA COMPLEX, GOLLAPUDI ROAD, VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE OF A P, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT FLOOR, 2ND BLOCK, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ CIRCLE OFFICE, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): pleased to declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the applicants from the date of completion of 10 years services in the existing vacancies as held by the Hon'ble High Court in WP.No.24377/2007 as confirmed in the WA.No.782/2010 as illegal, void and contrary to the articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of india and further direct the respondents to regularize the services of the applicants in the existing vacancies from the date of completion of 10 years of service in terms of Judgment in WP.No.27217/2017 as confirmed in WA.No.782/2010 and WP.No. 27217/2017, dt. 19.9.2017 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Applicants to file Single Original Application in the interest of Justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave to the Respondent to file counter affidavit and pass RC,J W.P(AT) Nos. 347 &357 of 2022 9 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T V V KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES IV The Court made the following: RESERVED ON 29-12-2025 PRONOUNCED ON 27-02-2026 UPLOADED ON 02.03.2026 RC,J W.P(AT) Nos. 347 &357 of 2022 10 COMMON ORDER: The grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitioins is that their service was not regularized from the date of completion of 10 years of service in the existing vacancies as held by this Court in W.P.No.24377 of 2007 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2010. 2. The contents of the writ petitions, in brief, are that the petitioners were initially appointed as N.M.R.Technical Work Inspectors during the year 1989 onwards and working as such and thereafter vide G.O.Rt.No.474, PR & RD Department, dated 25.02.2009 and G.O.Rt.No. 700, PR & RD Department, dated 08.04.2009, the Government granted minimum time scale of pay and Dearness Allowance attached to the post of Technical Work Inspectors to the petitioners. That the petitioners are fully eligible and qualified to hold the post of Technical Work Inspectors and hence they are eligible for regularization of services. That vide G.O.Rt.No.474, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (ESTT.II-A) Department, dated 25.02.2009, the Government allowed the remuneration at the minimum time scale of pay of Work Inspectors in Revision of Pay Scales, 2005 and subsequently the petitioners were allowed to draw the time scale pending regularization vide proceedings of the Commissioner. That though the petitioners were getting all the benefits on par with the regular employees, but their services are not regularized in spite RC,J W.P(AT) Nos. 347 &357 of 2022 11 of the pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi; State of Karnataka and another vs. M.L.Kesari and others and of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kodali Raju and others vs. APSRTC, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.782 of 20210, which was further confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. It is the further case of the petitioners that though there are so many vacancies and all the petitioners are working in the existing vacancies and they are eligible, the vacancies were kept unfilled. Hence the writ petition with a prayer to direct the respondent authorities to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date of completion of 10 years against the existing vacancies in terms of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi. 3. The respondent no.4-Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj Circle, filed counter affidavit, denying the material averments of the petition inter alia contending that the benefits that are eligible to the petitioners were already extended and as the petitioners have not completed minimum service of five (05) years as on 25.11.1993, they are not entitled for the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994. It is further stated in the counter that the petitioners are not RC,J W.P(AT) Nos. 347 &357 of 2022 12 being parties to the writ petition vide W.P.No.27217 of 2017, are not entitled to get the benefits extended to the petitioners therein. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri K.R.Srinivas , learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Government Pleader for Services-IV. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the petitioners, who were appointed as Non-Muster-Roll (N.M.R.) Technical Work Inspectors, are entitled to get regularization of their services immediately upon completion of 10 years of temporary service as per the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and another vs. M.L.Kesari and others1, and as per the decisions of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kodali Raju and others vs. APSRTC 2 and U.V.S.R.Prasad and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another3, however, despite of availability of existing vacancies the service of the petitioners was not regularized. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 1.2009(8) SCC 431 2.2011(1)ALD 234 32018(2) ald 282(db) RC,J W.P(AT) Nos. 347 &357 of 2022 13 6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Services-IV while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit would contend that all the benefits that are eligible to the petitioners were already extended and as the petitioners have not completed minimum service of five (05) years as on 25.11.1993, they are not entitled for the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994. He would further contend that the petitioners not being parties to the decisions rendered by this Court in the decisions relied on by the petitioners, are not entitled to get the benefits of the decision. The writ petition being meritless deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioners are not claiming the relief of regularization of their services by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 and therefore, completion of period of five (05) years by the cutoff date is irrelevant, but the petitioners are seeking regularization of their services as per the pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the effect that the employees working continuously on perennial work and extended benefits identical to regular employees are entitled to regularization irrespective of initial mode of appointment. RC,J W.P(AT) Nos. 347 &357 of 2022 14 In support of his contentions, the learned counsel also relied upon the decisions in Jaggo vs. Union of India & others4, The State of Gujarat & others vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel5. 8. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. As could be seen from the pleadings, the undisputed facts in this case are that the petitioners were initially appointed as Non-Muster-Roll (NMR) Technical Work Inspectors during the year 1989 and in terms of G.O.Rt.No.474, PR&RD, dated 25.02.2009 and G.O.Rt.No.700, PR&RD, dated 08.04.2009, the authorities granted minimum time scale and D.A.attached to the post of Technical work inspectors. 10. In Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and others6, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while reiterating the observations made in S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071] , R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937], held at para 53 thus: 4.2024 SCCONLINE SC 3826 5. 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 187 6. (2006) 4 SCC 1 RC,J W.P(AT) Nos. 347 &357 of 2022 15 “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date……” 11. In State of Karnataka v. M.L.Kesari (supra 1), a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the true purport of the directions contained in para 52 of the Judgment in Uma Devi’s case as thus: “5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against `regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been RC,J W.P(AT) Nos. 347 &357 of 2022 16 selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. Umadevi casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10.4.2006). 6. The term `one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services. 7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered. 8. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, RC,J W.P(AT) Nos. 347 &357 of 2022 17 before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for regularization in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure.” 12. From the admissions made in the pleadings, it is evident that the petitioners have been working as work Inspectors from the year 1989. It is also not in dispute that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi’s case was rendered in the year 2006, the petitioners have completed more than 10 years of service. The respondents have not disputed the fact that the petitioners fully satisfied the criteria laid down in the above reproduced para in Uma Devi’s case (supra). But, as noted hereinabove, the respondents have taken the stand that unless the petitioners satisfy the requirement of completion of minimum service of five (05) years as on 25.11.1993, they are not entitled to be considered for regularization. 13. In U.V.S.R.Prasad and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (supra 3), a Division Bench of this Court held thus: RC,J W.P(AT) Nos. 347 &357 of 2022 18 “13. If we consider the judgment in Uma Devi (1 supra) as clarified in M.L. Kesari (3 supra) in juxtaposition to Act 2 of 1994 along with its amendments and the judgment in A. Manjulabhashini (2009)8 scc 431, the following position emerges. 14. Act 2 of 1994 prohibits regularisation and regulates recruitments in public employment. However, in order to consider the claims for regularisation of the employees as one-time measure, the State Government has issued G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22-04-1994, wherein it has decided that the services of the persons, who have completed a continuous and minimum period of 5 years of service on or before 25-11-1993 and been continuing as on that date, shall be regularised in substantive vacancies, if they satisfy conditions 1 to 6 stipulated therein. Several orders of the Courts were made placing different interpretations on G.O.Ms.212, dated 22-04-1994, mainly with respect to the requirement of completion of five years of service. In order to allay the confusion, Section 7 of the Principal Act was amended by 1998 amendment Act by insertion of the proviso, which reads as under : Provided that the services of a person, who worked on daily wage/NMR/Consolidated pay/Contingent worker on full time basis continuously for a minimum period of five years and is continuing as such on the date of the commencement of the Act shall be regularised in accordance with the scheme formulated in G.O.Ms. No. 212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC. III) Department, dated the 22nd April, 1994. 15. While some orders were passed holding that a person is entitled to regularisation even if he has not completed five years of service as on 25-11- 1993, such orders were reversed by a Division Bench of this Court, which was confirmed by a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in A. Manjula Bhashini (2 supra), holding that in order to be entitled for regularisation, a person must have completed 5 years of continuous service as on 25-11-1993. 16. Concededly, the Supreme Court in A. Manjula Bhashini (2 supra) has not referred to the judgment in Uma Devi (1 supra). Thus, in our opinion, the directions given in Para 53 of the judgment in Uma Devi (1 supra) and the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 along with its amendments and the judgment in A. Manjula Bhashini (2 supra) operate in different situations. 17. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi (1 supra) was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated 22-04-1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of persons, who entered service through backdoors by giving a go- bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, RC,J W.P(AT) Nos. 347 &357 of 2022 19 consciously ordered for onetime absorption/regularization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated 22-04-1994, while giving directions in Para No. 53 of the judgment in Uma Devi (1 supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regularization/absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated 22.04.1994, do not whittle down the width and the judgment in Manjula Bashini (2 supra) does not lower the trajectory of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Para 53 of its judgment in Uma Devi (1 supra). It is, therefore, not permissible for the respondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated 22-04-1994, to deny regularization to the petitioners, who have, admittedly, satisfied the criteria laid down in Para No. 53 of the judgment in Uma Devi (1 supra).” 14. In view of the above observations, the contention of the respondents that unless the petitioners satisfy the requirements laid down in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 of completion of minimum five years of service by the cutoff date, they are not entitled to be considered for promotion, is untenable. 15. In Jaggo’s case (supra 4), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus: “26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural RC,J W.P(AT) Nos. 347 &357 of 2022 20 formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.” 16. In Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel’s case (supra 5), the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: “It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad- hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continuous service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such out not to have taken such a stand.” 17. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are duly qualified persons. Even if it is presumed that the petitioners have been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments RC,J W.P(AT) Nos. 347 &357 of 2022 21 would be considered to be irregular but not illegal and hence they are entitled to get the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi’s case. 18. Further, the continuation of petitioners in temporary posts for more than three (03) decades itself can be construed that there are vacant posts available and the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services upon completion of ten (10) years of qualified service. 19. For all the above reasons, the respondents are directed to regularize services of the petitioners from the date when they have completed 10 years in the existing vacancies. 20. In the above view of the matter, the writ petitions are disposed of, directing the respondents to regularize services of the petitioners from the date when they have completed ten (10) years of service. The petitioners be entitled to all the benefits including post-retiral benefits, as may be admissible to the regular employees, including pension. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 27th February, 2026. RR