THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.34991 OF 2022 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following relief: “to issue writ of mandamus A. By declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the genuine claim of the petitioner for retrospective regularization i.e w.e.f the date of completion of five years of service or on or before 25.11.1993 for the purpose of his pension and pensionary benefits in terms of Judgment of Honble Apex court decided between B Srinivasulu Vs Nellore Municipality rendered in Civil Appeal No 6318 of 2015 dt17.08.2015 r/w Reported Judgment of Division Bench in 2020 6 ALD 349 AP DB and recent Judgment dt.30.09.2022 rendered in W.P No.43482 of 2018 of High Court of Andhra Pradesh and regularizing only with prospective effect vide G.O.Ms.No.67 PR and RD E I Department dt.30.06.2015 is as highly illegal and contrary to the above judicial pronouncements if necessary to set-aside the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned B. And consequently to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for extending the benefit of past service rendered by him prior to his regularization orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.67 PR and RD E I Dept dt.30.06.2015 for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits in terms of Judgment of Honble Apex court decided between B Srinivasulu Vs Nellore Municipality rendered in Civil Appeal No 6318 of 2015 dt.17.08.2015 r/w Reported Judgment of Division Bench in 2020 6 ALD 349 AP DB and recent Judgment dt.30.09.2022 rendered in W P No 43482 of 2018 of High Court of Andhra Pradesh.” NV,J W.P.No.34991 of 2022 2 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as NMR Mazdoor w.e.f from 26.02.1984. Thereafter, his services were regularized with prospective manner vide G.O.Ms.No.67 (PR & RD (E.I) Department dated 30.06.2018 i.e. from the date of issuing the order instead of regularizing his services from the date of appointment. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner filed the present writ petition to count his past service rendered prior to his regularization i.e. retrospective regularization in the cadre of last grade employee, for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. 2. Respondent No.3 – Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj Department, Vijayawada, filed counter affidavit stating that, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.67 PR & RD dated 30.06.2015 regularizing the services of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 from prospective date i.e. date of issue of the order by the competent appointing authority. Vide Memo No.573/225/A3/PC.111/97 dated 01.09.1997 vide Para 2, the Government clarified that the regularizations that are done as per G.O.Ms.No.212 giving the benefit of regular services to the persons NV,J W.P.No.34991 of 2022 3 concerned only from the date of issue of the order making it prospective. Therefore, all benefits of regularization of services will be counted only from the date of issue of order. Vide G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 30.06.2015, the Government specifically mentioned that regularization of their services shall be from prospective date i.e. date of issue of the order by the competent appointing authority. But the petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court to regularize his services with retrospective effect i.e from 25.11.1993 for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits only. The Superintending Engineer, PR Circle, Guntur also issued speaking orders vide Proceedings No.A3/WP34991/2022/NMR Court Case dated 19.07.2025 to the petitioner that he is not eligible for payment of arrears, counting of service and also pensionary benefits from 25.11.1993. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the action of the respondents in not reckoning the service rendered by the petitioner prior to regularization for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits is arbitrary and unsustainable. It is submitted that the petitioner had rendered long and continuous service and that denial of the benefit of such past service for pensionary purposes is unjust. Learned NV,J W.P.No.34991 of 2022 4 counsel therefore submits that the service rendered prior to regularization ought to be taken into account while computing the qualifying service and prays for a direction to the respondents to count the said service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Venkaiah1 and State of A.P vs. L.B.M. Krishna2 and would contend that past service of the employee are to be reckoned for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits only. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services–I submits that the petitioner has no legal right to seek reckoning of the service rendered prior to the date of regularization for pensionary benefits. It is contended that the petitioner was not appointed against any sanctioned post or clear vacancy and was only engaged as an unskilled labourer on daily wage basis; hence, such service cannot be treated as qualifying service. It is further submitted that the petitioner was absorbed into regular service only pursuant to the relevant Government Orders and that such regularization was granted with prospective effect. Consequently, 1 2018 (4) ALD 590 DB 2 2020 (6) ALD 349 (AP) DB NV,J W.P.No.34991 of 2022 5 the petitioner’s service can be reckoned only from the date of such absorption. Learned Government Pleader also submits that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable, as those appointments were made against sanctioned vacancies. Learned counsel drawn placed reliance on the executive instructions issued under Rule 14 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and contended that service rendered prior to the effective date of regularization of daily wage/NMR employees cannot be counted for pension or any other purpose. The claim of the petitioner is therefore liable to be rejected. He further submits that in State of A.P. vs. L.B.M. Krishna, the petitioners therein were initially appointed as Vocational Instructors and were later appointed against sanctioned posts after the Government created 1030 posts of Vocational Instructors and selections were made through Selection Committees/Employment Exchanges. In contrast, the petitioner in the present case was engaged only as NMR on daily wage basis and not against any sanctioned post. Since the petitioner had not rendered service in the cadre of Attender prior to his absorption, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case and is of no assistance to the petitioner and requested to dismiss the writ petition. NV,J W.P.No.34991 of 2022 6 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader Services-I and perused the material available on record. 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as NMR Mazdoor on 26.02.1984. Since then the services of the petitioner had been continued as NMR till his services were regularized vide G.O.Rt.No.615 dated 18.07.1995 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. The first respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 directing all the departments to regularize the services of NMR/Daily Wage Employees/temporary employees who are eligible and completed the continuous service for more than five years on or before 25.11.1993, if they are eligible for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. In the instant case, the petitioner admittedly was appointed as NMR on 26.02.1984, therefore, the petitioner completed five years of service by 25.02.1989 itself, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for regularization of services in view of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 from 25.02.1989, but not from 26.02.1984. Therefore, the action of the respondents in not counting the past services of the petitioner before regularization is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in B. Srinivasulu vs. Nellore Municipal NV,J W.P.No.34991 of 2022 7 Corporation [Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015 dated 17.08.2015], Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Venkaiah (supra), State of A.P vs. L.B.M. Krishna (supra). 7. The contention of the learned Government Pleader that, in the present case, there were no sanctioned or vacant posts for appointing the petitioner as an NMR or daily wage employee, and that he was initially engaged as NMR on 26.02.1984, thereby disentitling him from regularization from the date of his initial appointment and limiting such entitlement only from the date his services were regularized vide G.O.Rt. No. 615 dated 18.07.1995, is not valid and cannot be sustained and contrary to the Rulings held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as extracted hereunder. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in B. Srinivasulu vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation held as follows: “The question of the State Exchequer being saddled with additional expenditure in relation to such regularisation does not arise, as the relief already granted to some of the employees in the cases on hand is to reckon their services upon completion of five years on or before 25.11.1993 only for the purpose of their pension and pensionary benefits. They are not to be given any monetary benefits in the form of arrears of pay or otherwise. Similar relief would have to be extended to those employees who were non-suited by NV,J W.P.No.34991 of 2022 8 the Tribunal and are before this Court. As all of them served the State or its instrumentalities for decades together, extending to them the benefit of such service only for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits can hardly be said to be an onerous burden either on the State or the State Exchequer. Having utilised their services all along, the State and its instrumentalities cannot now turn their back on the loyal services rendered by these employees. The learned Government Pleader would also point out that some of the O.A.s/writ petitions were filed with substantial delay after the regularization orders were passed, giving the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.212 with effect from the stipulated dates therein prospectively. She would assert that such settled matters should not be unsettled merely because the Supreme Court passed the subsequent order in B.SRINIVASULU. It may however be noticed that the trajectory of developments since the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.212, as set out hereinbefore, demonstrates that there was no consistency even in the orders passed by the Tribunal and this Court. Identically situated people were treated differently. The narration supra in relation to this very batch of cases demonstrates that the Tribunal gave the benefit of B.SRINIVASULU to some and denied it to others. In such a fluid and uncertain situation, an employee cannot be blamed for seeking relief even after lapse of some years as there was no clarity as to the legal position. As the Supreme Court has now settled the same by way of its decision in B.SRINIVASULU, employees who completed five years of service on or before 25.11.1993 and were already regularised in service with prospective effect cannot NV,J W.P.No.34991 of 2022 9 be found fault with for approaching this Court with some delay so as to seek the benefit of their past service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 at least for the limited purpose of their pension and pensionary benefits. 9. On the above analysis, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the authorities concerned to extend the benefit of B.SRINIVASULU to the employees in this batch of cases by reckoning their services from the date of completion of five years in service, on or before 25.11.1993, for the purposes of their pension and pensionary benefits. They shall however not be entitled to actual monetary benefits for the said period, in the form of arrears of pay or allowances.” 10. In the above judgment, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court directed the authorities concerned to extend the benefit of B.SRINIVASULU to the employees by reckoning their services from the date of completion of five years in service, on or before 25.11.1993, for the purposes of their pension and pensionary benefits, however, they shall not be entitled to actual monetary benefits for the said period, in the form of arrears of pay or allowances. 11. Therefore, the present writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by reckoning the past service prior to his regularization for the purpose of NV,J W.P.No.34991 of 2022 10 pensionary benefits only without monetary benefits and arrears of pay, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 12. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand dismissed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date: 16.02.2026 SP