APHC010599992005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 20989 of 2005 Bench Sr.No:-26 [3506] G. Venkatappa, Chittoor District, ...Petitioner Vs. The Secretary to Government (Rep. State of A. P.) Revenue (Endowments-III) Department and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr.T JANARDHAN RAO Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP FOR ENDOWMENTS, Mr.NVS PRASADA VARMA CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 26th February 2026 ORDER: Present writ petition is filed seeking following relief: “….to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents to consider the case of Petitioner for regularising his services with effect from the initial date of appointment i.e, 10-10-1984 fixing the pay in regular scale of pay, granting consequential benefits of revision of pay as revised from time to time with all consequential benefits, duly setting aside the impugned order ROC No. D7/23147/DED/2002, dated 1-4-2004, of the 2nd Respondent, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the above said reliefs inspite of several orders passed by this Hon'ble Court, declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal, unwarranted, misconceived and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, in the interest of justice….” 2. Petitioner was initially appointed as N.M.R. in the post of Instructor in Making Baskets with 3rd respondent on 10.10.1984. He possessed qualification of 4th standard at that point of time. Subsequently, the 2 CGR, J. W.P. No.20989 of 2005 respondents have issued proceedings, dated 01.08.1991, by which decision was taken to create about 1851 posts in various departments of TTD. On account of the said creation of new posts and availability of vacancies, the persons who were already engaged as N.M.Rs./Casual Labourers/on consolidated pay/daily wagers were decided to be absorbed with effect from 01.08.1991. Accordingly, petitioner’s service came to be regularized with effect from 01.08.1991. However, as one of the employees working with 3rd respondent came to be issued proceedings, dated 01.05.1995, allowing him to be regularized with effect from 19.04.1988, who discharged duties as Tailoring Instructor, claiming parity with him, petitioner made representation, dated 05.12.2001. The said representation eventually came to be rejected by impugned proceedings, dated 01.04.2004, by observing that petitioner cannot be equated himself with the case of Sri A.Lokanadham. Assailing the same, present writ petition is preferred. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that as petitioner and Sri A.Lokanadham, since were initially appointed on daily wage basis, though in different branches, the respondents cannot discriminate petitioner to regularize his service from the date of his initial appointment, when the other employee has been regularized with effect 3 CGR, J. W.P. No.20989 of 2005 from 19.04.1988. In support of his argument, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.Srinivasulu v. Nellore Municipal Corporation1. 6. Per contra, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3 contended that petitioner though possessed only 4th standard qualification, having regard to the scheme that was introduced in 1991, which envisages absorption of persons who were already working as N.M.Rs., petitioner’s case was accordingly considered and regularised with effect from 01.08.1991, except for the said Scheme, petitioner has no other vested right to claim for regularisation from the date of initial engagement as N.M.R. Further, placing reliance or claiming parity with other employee does not arise as they were engaged in different streams of works and at any rate, petitioner having accepted the regularisation in pursuance to proceedings, dated 01.08.1991, cannot reagitate the issue after lapse of about 10 years. 7. It is not in dispute that initially petitioner was appointed as N.M.R. and discharged duties as Instructor, Basket Making. But for rolling out of the Scheme, in pursuance to proceedings, dated 01.08.1991, he could not have been regularised with effect from the said date. Be that as it may, petitioner, having accepted the regularisation in pursuance to aforesaid 1 (2021) 13 SCC 460 4 CGR, J. W.P. No.20989 of 2005 proceedings, chose not to agitate his rights, if at all any existed, to claim for regularisation from the date of his initial engagement. 8. Though learned counsel for petitioner tried to make out a case based on discrimination stated to have been meted out on account of non- consideration of his case on par with other employee, there is nothing on record to suggest that both sail on the same footing in terms of engagement, qualification and the terms of appointment. Even otherwise, the proceedings issued in favour of the other employee was in the year 1995, whereas the representation of the petitioner was only on 05.12.2001, and came to be rejected by impugned proceedings, dated 01.04.2004. As petitioner failed to demonstrate and establish any right as such to claim for regularisation with effect from his initial engagement, this Court is unable to accede to the prayer made by the petitioner. The judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court sought to be relied upon has no applicability to the facts of the present case. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:26.02.2026. cs