APHC010420492021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 1214/2021 Between: 1. S NAGESWAR RAO, S/O PURUSHOTHAM OCC.JUNIOR TECHNICAL OFFICER O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ISRMC DIVISION JANGAREDDYGUDEM WEST GODAVARI DISTSRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CIRCLE WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT NEAR COLLECTARATE ELURU WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVT OF A.P H.NO.48-10-9/1 N.H.FEEDER ROAD NEAR RAMAVARAPPADU CIRCLE CURRENCY NAGAR VIJAYAWADA 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINICIPAL SECRETARY FOR WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT A.P SECRETARIATE VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT A.P SECRETARIATE VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): p. 2 To declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing the service of the applicant retrospectively without any monetary benefit with effect from the date of Vacancy available on or after cutoff date i.e. 25.11.1993 as per G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance and planning dated 22.04.1994 is illegal arbitrary, unjustified, violative of Articles 14,16,21 of constitution of India and contrary to order of the Honble High Court and Honble Supreme Court concerning and consequently direct the respondent to count the temporary service rendered by the applicant from the date of Vacancy available on or after cutoff date i.e. 25.11.1993 for the purpose of counting the qualifying service for fixation of pension and all other consequential benefits Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES III 2. GP FOR SERVICES I 3. The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri Geethak Chowdary Nelakuditi, learned counsel representing Sri M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.Nookapathi Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II for the respondents. 2. Petitioner filed O.A.No.2954 of 2017 to declare the action of respondents in not regularising the services of the petitioner, without monetary benefit, with effect from 25.11.1993, as per the G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance & Planning, dated 22.04.1994, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. a) Petitioner was initially appointed temporarily in the Taliperu Reservoir Project in the Irrigation Department in the erstwhile Khammam p. 3 District on 01.03.1987. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. As per the scheme of the above G.O., NMRs who have completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993, their services would be regularised. It seems the respondents did not continue the petitioner and hence, the petitioner, along with others, filed O.A.No.808 of 2002 and the same was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner and others are contract labourers. b) The petitioner and others filed W.P.No.12363 of 2005. The said writ petition was dismissed by the composite High Court on 02.09.2005. The petitioner and others filed Civil Appeal No.4443 of 2008. The said Civil Appeal was disposed of on 11.08.2008, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation without past monetary benefits. The petitioner‟s service was regularised vide G.O.Ms.No.28 dated 26.03.2010. The 2nd respondent issued consequential proceedings vide Fax Memo No.ENC/IW/P&M/ EE.III/W2/4321/2007, dated 27.03.2010. As seen from the G.O.Ms.No.28, dated 26.03.2010 and the consequential proceedings, the petitioner‟s service was regularised prospectively. c) The petitioner, along with others, filed O.A.No.7203 of 2010 assailing the regularisation proceedings prospectively. The said O.A. was allowed on 04.02.2013, and the operative portion of the order reads thus: “In view of the conclusions arrived in the above points, the relief sought by the applicants deserved to be granted. The applicants‟ services have to be regularized w.e.f. 25.11.1993 and not prospectively as ordered by the respondents … …. Accordingly, O.A. is allowed directing the respondents to absorb and regularize the services of the applicants w.e.f. 25.11.1993, without physical monetary benefits.” p. 4 d) The State filed W.P.No.3670 of 2014, and the Division Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh set aside the order dated 04.02.2013 in O.A.No.7203 of 2010 and remanded the matter to the Administrative Tribunal for fresh consideration. After remand, the Tribunal was abolished, and hence, the O.A.No.7203 of 2010 was transferred to the High Court of Telangana and renumbered as W.P. (AT) No.7 of 2018. Except for the petitioner, the other 8 petitioners belonged to Khammam District. Learned single Judge of the Telangana High Court by order dated 29.10.2022 allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents therein to regularise the services of petitioners w.e.f. 25.11.1993 or against a clear vacancy available immediately after the date, with all consequential benefits, except monetary benefits as directed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court. e) The State of Telangana filed an intra-Court appeal W.A.No.886 of 2023, wherein the petitioner herein was shown as the 2nd respondent. However, in the cause title, it was mentioned that the petitioner was working in Andhra Pradesh, and the writ petition was transferred to the A.P. High Court vide W.P. (A.T.) No.1214 of 2021, and hence, he is not a necessary party to the writ appeal. The Division Bench of the Telangana High Court allowed the appeal in part, and the operative portion of the order reads thus: “ … … … directing the appellants to extend the benefits to the respondents as was extended in B.Srinivasulu‟s case, by reckoning their services from the date of completion of five years or before 25.11.1993 only for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits, without any monetary benefits.” 4. Sri Geethak Chowdary Nelakuditi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that though the petitioner‟s service was regularised prospectively by G.O.Ms.No.28 dated 26.03.2010, in view p. 5 of the law laid down by the Division Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Government of A.P. Vs. N.Venkaiah1, B.Srinivasulu Vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation2 and the Division Bench of this Court in Andhra Pradesh Bevarages Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director Vs. K.Kesava Narayana Reddy and others 3, the petitioner‟s service ought to be regularised w.e.f. 25.11.1993 for pension and pensionary benefits, without any monetary benefit. 5. A counter-affidavit and additional counter affidavit was filed by the 1st respondent. In the additional counter affidavit, it was pleaded that by virtue of Section 7-B as amended by Act 7 of 2024, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs as sought for. 6. The Division Bench of this Court in Andhra Pradesh Bevarages Corporation’s case (supra-3), held thus: 14. In the case of N. Venkaiah (supra), it was observed that when no regular exercise was ever undertaken in any Department to assess the vacancy position so as to immediately extend benefit to those covered by G.O.Ms. No. 212, it is not open to the State to say that there were no vacancies as on the date that the employees in question completed five years of service, on or before 25.11.1993. It was further observed that when such employees were retained in service for decades together, the necessity to continue them as per the workload is manifest and clearly demonstrated, requiring no further evidence and even if there is any doubt as to whether condition No. 5 of G.O.Ms. No. 212 is fulfilled as on the date of completion of five years in service by the employees concerned, the benefit of doubt would invariably have to be given to the said employees and not to the State. It was further observed that they are not to be given any monetary benefits in the form of arrears of pay or otherwise. 1 (2018) 4 ALD 590 (DB) 2 Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015, dated 17.08.2025 p. 6 15. Following the Division Bench judgment in N. Venkaiah (supra), we hold that the services of respondent Nos. 1 to 60/writ petitioners would be deemed to have been regularized from the cut-off date, i.e., 25.11.1993, for the purpose of fixation of pension and pensionary benefits. As held in the aforesaid judgment, respondent Nos. 1 to 60/writ petitioners are not to be given any monetary benefits in the form of arrears of pay or otherwise from that date. Respondent Nos. 3 2021 SCC OnLine AP 2610 : (2021) 5 ALD 422 1 to 60/writ petitioners will be entitled to salary in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 31 dated 28.02.2017. 7. The observations extracted supra, squarely apply to the facts of this case. Section 7-B of Act 7 of 2024 will not come in the way of the petitioner‟s entitlement vis-à-vis the regularisation of his service w.e.f. 25.11.1993 and consequential pension and pensionary benefits. 8. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition stands allowed. The proceedings vide G.O.Ms.No.28 dated 26.03.2010 and the consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide Fax Memo No.ENC/IW/P&M/ EE.III/W2/4321/2007, dated 27.03.2010, vis-à-vis regularising the petitioner to the extent „prospectively‟ are interdicted. The respondents shall regularise the service of the petitioner with effect from 25.11.1993 for pension and pensionary benefits, without any other monetary benefits. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD