APHC010318152013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 13014/2013 Between: 1. CH. MALLESWARA RAO, S/O. LATE. RAMANNA,, ATTENDER, D.NO. 1-352, LINGALAVALASA (V), RANA (PO), JALUMURU (M), SRIKAKULAM DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE GOVT OF A P REP BY ITS PRL SECRETARY, HOUSING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P. STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD., HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD. 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, A.P. STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD., SRIKAKULAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR SRIKAKULAM, - ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 any writ, order or direction particularly a writ in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondents to regularize the services of the applicant from the date of completion of five years of service i.e. 15-11-1990 retrospectively with extension of all monetary benefits to the applicant including promotions at the appropriate intervals with all consequential and attendant benefits 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 15986 OF 2013 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 direct the 1st respondent to pass orders within 4 weeks effecting retrospective regularization of the petitioner by taking the proposals of the 2nd respondent in Lr.Rc.No.A3/2958/2004, dtd. 13-03-2007 in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 for the Counter affidavit in W.P.No.13014 of 2013 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B M PATRO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. M RAVINDRANATH REDDY(SC FOR APSHC) 4. GP FOR HOUSING The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The petitioner is seeking regularization of his services with effect from 15.11.1990. The petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis as a sweeper on payment of Rs.14/- per day. Thereafter the 2nd respondent sent a proposal to the 1st respondent on 13.03.2007 seeking the approval for regularizing the services of the petitioner with effect from 15.11.1990 after the petitioner completing five (05) years of continuous service. 2. It is submitted that the services of the petitioner were regularized vide proceedings dated 01.11.1989. It is also submitted that the petitioner was initially recruited against the sanctioned and a clear vacancy of attender-cum-watchman. It is also submitted that the regularization orders were revised vide proceedings dated 09.07.1990 by regularizing the services of the petitioner with effect from 15.11.1985. Thereafter after lapse of five (05) years, the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 30.06.1995 cancelled the orders of regularization and reverted the petitioner to the post of attender-cum-watchman on daily wage basis. The petitioner filed W.P.No.15637 of 1995 challenging the impugned proceedings on reversion as a daily wage worker. The writ petition was disposed of on 21.04.1998 with a direction to regularize the services of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. 3. It is further submitted that the 1st respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularization. It is submitted that the said rejection is purely on 4 the assumption that the petitioner was not engaged against the clear and sanctioned vacancy. It is also submitted that the proposals for regularization were being sent by the 2nd respondent as well on 13.03.2007 to the 1st respondent. However, there was no proper reply or response to the said proposals. It is submitted that the issue of retrospective regularization from the date of completion of five (05) years of continuous service is settled by this Court in W.P.No.35347 of 2012 and several employees were similarly situated their services were regularized soon after completion of five (05) years of continuous service. 4. The respondents have regularized the services of the petitioner with effect from 23.05.2002. It is submitted that the said order is passed denying the petitioner the benefit of the past service and the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. It is also submitted that several employees in various organizations and their services were regularized soon after completion of the five (05) years of service. On these grounds the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from 15.11.1990. 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the petitioner was initially engaged on daily wages with effect from 15.11.1985. Thereafter, his services were regularized with effect from 15.11.1985 and the probation of the petitioner was also declared with effect from 14.11.1987. The 2nd respondent issued orders of revocation of the petitioner’s regularization and reverted the petitioner as 5 attender-cum-watchman on daily wage basis as the 1st respondent did not give concurrence for filling up the vacancies. It is also submitted that the regularization proceedings dated 01.11.1989 were cancelled as there was no sanctioned and regular vacancy. It is submitted that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2014 as such submits that the writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner cannot as a matter of Fundamental Right claim for regularization. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the 1st respondent. 7. Perused the record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged on a daily wage basis on 14.11.1985 as attender-cum-watchman. The petitioner was registered in the employment exchange and basing on the information from the employment exchange the 1st respondent issued proceedings engaging the services of the petitioner and another employee on a daily wage basis with effect from 15.11.1985. The services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 15.11.1985 vide proceedings dated 28.08.1989. 9. The petitioner was working on temporary basis in a clear vacancy and a sanctioned post as is evident from the correspondence addressed by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent on 13.03.2007 these proceedings make it ample clear that the petitioner was working against the sanctioned vacancy only. However, for the reasons better known to the respondents the 6 3rd respondent after lapse of five (05) years issued proceedings dated 30.06.1995 cancelling the regularization orders and referring the petitioner for the post of attender-cum-watchman on daily wage basis. This Court in W.P.No.19068 of 1995 directed the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. Admittedly the said orders have attained the finality and are binding on the respondents. Instead of complying with the orders of this Court, the respondents have taken a stand which is not only strange but also contrary to the record. 10. The counter of the 2nd respondent would show that the petitioner was engaged on a daily wage basis and the proposal for regularization of the services of the petitioner were rejected as there was no sanctioned post. The said averment of the counter is contrary to the letter addressed by the 2nd respondent dated 13.03.2007. The stand of the 2nd respondent appears to be tailored to suit their requirements at their appropriate times which cannot be considered as valid ground for rejecting the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pawan Kumar and others vs. Union of India and others1 in S.L.P (C) No.29214 of 2019. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the services of the appellants therein were to be regularized from the date of completion of five (05) years of service. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also considered that when similar benefit was extended to the other employees the respondents has expected to 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 200 7 the disciplinary treatment to the appellants therein by not regularizing their services on par with the other employees. Following the same, the services of the petitioner were initially regularized and after a lapse of five (05) years the respondent not included with regard to the petitioner to the post of attender-cum-watchman on daily wage basis this Court having found fault with had directed the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212. Though the order is staring at the respondents no action has been taken and subsequently the services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from the year 2002. This Court finds the said proceedings as patently illegal and would have to be rectified. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to regularize in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 and the respondents shall have to recalculate and release the monetary benefits due payable to the petitioner by considering his services as regularized with effect from 15.11.1990. It is also made clear that the respondents shall have to release all the service benefits due payable to the petitioner within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 24.02.2026 PNS 8