THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.38674 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 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 and regularizing only with prospective effect vide G.O Rt No.615 Revenue CT III Dept dated 18.07.1995 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.Rt No.615 Revenue CT-III Dept dated 18.07.1995 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.38674 of 2022 2 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as NMR Daily wage employee on 08.02.1988 and posted in the office of CTO, Brodipet, Guntur. The services of the petitioner were regularized vide G.O.Rt.No.615 dated 18.07.1995 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 F & P (PC.III) Department dated 22.04.1994 with prospective effect 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 30.06.2021 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, for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. 2. Respondent No.3 – Joint Commissioner, Guntur-I Division, filed counter affidavit stating that, the petitioner was not initially appointed against clear vacancy. There are no such sanctioned posts in the name of NMR Daily wage employee in the subordinate offices of Commercial Taxes Department. When there were no sanctioned posts, there will be no vacancies. Moreover, the petitioner was initially appointed as unskilled labourer on 08.02.1988 and later absorbed as Attender w.e.f 01.08.1995 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 and G.O.Rt.No.615 NV,J W.P.No.38674 of 2022 3 dated 18.07.1995. the petitioner services in the cadre of Attender freshly start with effect from the date of jointing as Attender and that he had no right to claim the service rendered by him till the date of orders. The appointment of the petitioner is not similar to that of the appointments of incumbents vide G.O.Rt.no.3072 Finance (Admn- III) Department dated 03.07.2010, as the incumbents in G.O.R.t.No.3072 dated 03.07.2010 were initially appointed as L.D.As in the actual vacancies and subsequently regularized as Junior Accountants, whereas the petitioner in the present writ petition was appointed as unskilled labour which was not a post sanctioned by the Government. There are no such sanctioned posts in the name of NMR Daily wage employee in the subordinate offices of Commercial Taxes Department and when there were no sanctioned pots, there will be no vacancies. Hence, the petitioner was not eligible for regularization in the cadre of Attender w.e.f the initial appointment as unskilled labourer on daily wage basis. As per the executive instructions under Rule 14 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 vide Govt. memo No.573/225/A3/PC.III/97 dated 01.09.1997, counting of service rendered prior to the effective date of regularization cannot be entertained for pension and any other purposes as per the conditions laid down by the Government, including regularization of services of daily wage employees/NMR NV,J W.P.No.38674 of 2022 4 employees only from the date of issue of such order making with prospective. 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 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. 1 2018 (4) ALD 590 DB 2 2020 (6) ALD 349 (AP) DB NV,J W.P.No.38674 of 2022 5 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, 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 NV,J W.P.No.38674 of 2022 6 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 an unskilled labourer on daily wage basis on part-time 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. 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 Daily Wage Employee on 08.022.1988. Since then the services of the petitioner were continued as NMR/Daily Wage Employee 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 NV,J W.P.No.38674 of 2022 7 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/Daily Wage Employee on 08.02.1988, therefore, the petitioner completed five years of service by 07.02.1993, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for regularization of services in view of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 from 25.11.1993 but not from 18.07.1995. Therefore, the action of the respondents in not completing 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 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 an unskilled labourer on 08.02.1988, thereby disentitling him from regularization from the date of his initial appointment and limiting such entitlement only NV,J W.P.No.38674 of 2022 8 from the date his services were regularized vide G.O.Rt. No. 615 dated 18.07.1995, is not valid and cannot be sustained. 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 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 NV,J W.P.No.38674 of 2022 9 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 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.” NV,J W.P.No.38674 of 2022 10 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 pensionary benefits only without monetary benefits and arrears of pay, within a period of two (02) 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