APHC010570792024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 29881/2024 Between: 1. R.MUNIRAJULU, S/O RAJAGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 51 YRS, WORKING AS OFFICE SUBORDINATE, R/O 14-809, GOOLINGSPET, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (HI) DEPARTMENT. SECRETARIATE, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIATE, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. THE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORIES AND FOOD (HEALTH), THIVEDULA ENCLAVE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE ASST FOOD CONTROLLER AND DESIGNATED OFFICER, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...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 a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one 2 in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner though the petitioner is working in the post of Office Subordinate since May 2013 and earlier as Sweeper cum Scavenger in the office of 4th respondent since more than 33 years in total without any break in service by considering the representation of the petitioner dt.29-04-2024 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminative and against statutory provisions and against Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to regular the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.03.1991 or May 2013 as Office Subordinate or in any suitable post with all consequential and attendant benefits along with continuity of service and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dt.29-04-2024 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition 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 pleased to grant leave to the Respondents to file Counter Affidavit Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P V KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES IV 2. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order i to declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner though the petitioner is working in the post of Office Subordinate since May 2013 and earlier as Sweeper cum Scavenger in the office of 4th respondent since more than 33 years in total without any break in service by considering the representation of the petitioner dt.29-04-2024 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminative and against statutory provisions and against Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to regular the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.03.1991 or May 2013 as Office Subordinate or in any suitable post with all consequential and attendant benefits along with continuity of service and pass….” 2. Heard Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. 3. As per the averments made in the affidavit, it clearly discloses that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1991 as part time worker and the petitioner has continued in the said post. But based on the request made by the petitioner, he was appointed as office subordinate in the year 2013 and subsequently, the respondents have also considered and released the minimum time scale as per the revised pay scales 2019, the arrears were also paid from September 2018 to November 2019. Though the petitioner continued for more than 33 years, the respondents have not regularized the services of the petitioner. Hence the Writ Petition. 4 4. Considering the submissions made and perusal of the record, this Court has passed interim order on 18.12.2024. Basing on the interim orders, the respondents have considered and rejected the case of the petitioner and filed their counter. In the counter, they have specifically stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.114 Finance Department dated 21.10.2023 for regularization of services of contract employees, who were initially appointed on contract basis, with the following conditions i.e. notification of vacancies, selection process, Rule of reservation and eligibility, age and educational qualifications. As the petitioner has not complied the said conditions, they have considered and rejected the case of the petitioner vide orders dated 15.9.2025. 5. Basing on the above averments, learned Government Pleader has made his submissions on G.O.Ms.No.114 dated 21.10.2023 clearly stipulates a condition that the person should have been appointed on contract basis as on 02.6.2014 and should have continued as on the date of commencement of Andhra Pradesh Regularization of Services of Contract Employees Act, 2023. Further regularization of a person appointed on contract basis shall be considered only if his initial appointment was duly complied with the notification, vacancy position, selection process and rule of reservation and eligibility. 6. In the instant case, a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition as well as counter as the respondents have not denied the 5 appointment of the petitioner in 1991 and they have also not denied with regard to continuation of the petitioner since 30 years and it is also not in dispute that the petitioner was continuing as on date. As per the conditions of the G.O.Ms.No.114 dated 02.6.2014 till 20.10.2023 when the petitioner has complied the condition to paragraph no.2 and it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1991 and continuing in all these years, the respondents ought not to have rejected the case of the petitioner by taking the condition stipulated in paragraph no.5. The only ground for rejection is at the time of appointment no notification was issued. Earlier that was not the procedure followed by the respondent authorities when the respondents have not followed the procedure by notifying for selection of contract employees, they should not have pressed for compliance of paragraph no.5 of G.O.Ms.No.114 dated 21.10.2023. 7. In the said circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, if the petitioner has complied the conditions imposed in paragraph no.2 of the G.O.Ms.No.114 dated 21.10.2023, his case may be considered and pass appropriate orders for regularization without insisting for compliance of the conditions imposed in paragraph no.5 of G.O.Ms.No.114. The said exercise shall be completed within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 6 As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the writ petition, shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH RD 23.01.2026. 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.29881 OF 2024 23.01.2026 RD