APHC010301542018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE 13th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 13721/2018 Between: 1. P.NAGESWARA RAO, S/0 P.KOTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RETIRED BILL COLLECTOR ON NMR BASIS IN ONGOLE MUNICIPALITY, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, GORANTLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ONGOLE, PRAKSAM DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER. ...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 toto issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by by declaring the action of the respondents in not implementing the orders passed by the Honble AP Administrative Tribunal in OA No.5188/2010, dt.20.7.2012 for regularization of the services of the petitioner from the date of completion of 5 years even after the dismissal of 2 WP No.25864/2017 filed by the Respondents is illegal, arbitrary and voilative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner retrospectively by granting pensionary benefits in view of attaining the age of 60 years by the petitioner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 to direct then respondents to implement the orders passed by the Hon'ble AP Administrative Tribunal in OA NO. 5188/2010 dt. 27-08-2012 pending final disposal of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 May be pleased to receive the counter copy on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 2. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 13721/2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: "...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not implementing the order passed by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.5188 of 2010, dated 27.08.2012, directing regularization of the services of the petitioner from the date of completion of five years of service, even after dismissal of W.P. No.25864 of 2017 filed by the respondents, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner retrospectively by extending all consequential service and pensionary benefits, in view of the petitioner having attained the age of 60 years, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was initially appointed as an NMR Work Inspector on 01.02.1982 and continued in service till 30.04.1986, when his services were terminated without following the prescribed procedure. Aggrieved by the said termination, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No.14943 of 1993. The said writ petition was allowed by order dated 07.10.1993 with the following direction: "It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this writ petition is covered by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.5164 of 1983, dated 04.12.1984. Following the same, this writ petition is allowed." (a) Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 20.07.1994. Thereafter, he was granted the minimum time scale attached 4 to the post of Bill Collector with effect from 19.04.1997 and has been continuously discharging his duties without any adverse remarks from the competent authorities. Since the respondents failed to grant him periodical increments, as was being done in other Municipalities, the petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") by filing O.A. No.6549 of 1996. The Tribunal disposed of the said Original Application by order dated 28.02.2001 with the following directions: "Thus, we direct the respondents to regularize the services of all the applicants who fulfil the conditions incorporated in G.O.Ms. No.212, dated 22.04.1994 and G.O.Ms. No.112, dated 23.07.1997, irrespective of the fact whether they completed five/ten years of service as on 25.11.1993, provided they were in service as on the said cut-off date, without insisting upon the existence of a clear vacancy. More specifically, we direct the respondents to consider the cases of all the applicants who were appointed prior to 25.11.1993 and who completed five/ten years of service as full-time or part-time employees for regularization as and when they complete the said period of service. The above exercise shall be completed within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We further direct the respondents to pay salaries to the applicants in the pay scale attached to the post and pay arrears of salary from 23.02.2001. The said exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed." (b) Pursuant to the said order, respondent No.4 forwarded proposals to the Government for regularization of the petitioner's services as Bill Collector. As no orders were passed thereon, the petitioner once again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.9084 of 2002. The Tribunal disposed of the said Original Application on 13.07.2009 with the following direction: "In the light of the above circumstances, the O.A. is disposed of directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the proposal dated 10.08.2002 sent by the third respondent regarding regularization of the services of the 5 applicant, keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above." (c) Thereafter, the Government, vide Memo No.26277/G2/2002-8 dated 29.10.2009, rejected the petitioner's claim for regularization solely on the ground that he had not completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993, relying upon Memo No.17298/G2/2002-3, Municipal Administration Department, dated 11.11.2002. Questioning the said rejection, the petitioner filed O.A. No.5188 of 2010 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by order dated 27.08.2012, disposed of the Original Application with the following directions: "In the light of the above circumstances, this O.A. is disposed of directing the respondents to examine the case of the applicant as to whether he satisfies the conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms. No.212, dated 22.04.1994, as on the date of reinstatement, by treating the applicant as having completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993, and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the impugned Memo No.26277/G2/2002-8 dated 29.10.2009 and Memo No.17298/G2/2002-3, dated 11.11.2002, are set aside." (d) The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that, notwithstanding the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the respondents neither regularized his services nor extended the consequential benefits. The petitioner was not permitted to attend work from March, 2018 on the ground that he had attained the age of 60 years, without implementing the Tribunal's order directing consideration of his case for regularization. Aggrieved by the failure of the respondents in implementing the order dated 27.08.2012 passed in O.A. No.5188 of 2010, the present writ petition has been filed. 6 3. Respondent No.4 filed a counter-affidavit wherein the facts stated by the petitioner were admitted and reiterated. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. A careful consideration of the record, it can be observed that the petitioner has approached the Tribunal on three different occasions seeking regularization of his services under G.O.Ms. No.212 dated 22.04.1994. On each occasion, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider his case in accordance with the said Government Order. Ultimately, in O.A. No.5188 of 2010, the Tribunal specifically directed the respondents to examine the petitioner's case by treating him as having completed five years of service and to pass appropriate orders. The Tribunal also set aside the Government Memos rejecting his claim. Though the respondents challenged the said order by filing W.P. No.25864 of 2017, the writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court. Consequently, the order passed by the Tribunal attained finality and became binding upon the respondents. Even thereafter, this Court, while disposing of I.A. No.1 of 2018 in the present writ petition, directed implementation of the Tribunal's order. Despite the same, the respondents have failed to extend the benefit of the Tribunal's order to the petitioner. 6. Once the order passed by the Tribunal has attained finality, the respondents are bound to implement the same in its true letter and spirit. The respondents cannot frustrate or circumvent a judicial order by reiterating grounds which already stood rejected by the Tribunal. 7 7. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to a direction for implementation of the order passed by the Tribunal. However, the petitioner got retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation in the month of March, 2018. 8. In view of the same, as the petitioner has already retired in March, 2018, this Writ Petition is disposed of and the respondents are directed to consider the length of the service rendered by the petitioner for re-fixing the retirement benefits to the petitioner, keeping in view the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.5188 of 2010, dated 27.08.2012. The said process shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 13.07.2026 KA 8 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 13721/2018 Date: 13.07.2026 KA