APHC010085682023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 4298 OF 2023 Between: 1. S ABDUL RAHEEM, S/o Late S.Khaja Hussain, aged about 57 years, Working as PH Maistry, 0/o Kadiri Municipality, Satya Sai District. 2. J.Nagendra Prasad, S/o Late Bala Subbaiah, aged about 56 years, Working as Work Inspector, 0/o Kadiri Municipailty, Satyasai District ...Petitioners AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , rep.by its Principal Secretary, MA and UD Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, , rep.by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat Buildings,Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 3. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Gorantla, Guntur District. 4. The Kadiri Municipality, Kadiri, Satyasai District, rep.by its Commissioner ...Respondents 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 Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not granting retrospective regularization from the date of completion of 5 years on or before 25.11.1993 for counting of NMR service rendered prior to regularization of petitioners service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6318/2015 dt.17.8.2015 as followed by the combined Hon'ble AP High Court in WP No.33936/2011 and Batch dt. 2.5.2018 (Reported in 2018 4 ALT P.6) and also orders passed in WA No.414/2020, dt. 27.8.2021 Reported in 2021 (5) ALD P.422 is illegal, arbitrary and voilative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to grant retrospective regularization from the date of completion of 5 years of service on or before 25.11.1993 for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6318/2015 dt.17.8.2015 which were followed by the combined Hon'ble High Court in WP No.33936/2011 and Batch dt. 2.5.2018 Reported in 2018 (4) ALT 6 and also orders passed in WA No.414/2020 , dt. 27.8.2021 Reported in 2021 (5) ALD P.422 r/w Rule 13 and 14 of AP Revised Pension Rules and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 claim of the petitioners for retrospective regularization from the date of completion of 5 years on or before 25.11.1993 for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits in terms of orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015 dt. 17.8.2015 which were followed by the combined Hon'ble High Court in WP No.33936/2011 & batch dt. 2.5.2018 Reported in 2018 (4) ALT P.6 and also orders passed in WA No.414/2020, dt. 27.8.2021 Reported in 2021 (5) ALD P.422 r/w Rule 13 & 14 of AP Revised Pension Rules, pending final disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: P RAGHAVENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: B SIVA SANKARA RAO SC For Services to Municipalities in rayalaseema, Nellore Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR SERVICES IV Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR SERVICES I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: “…pleased to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not granting retrospective regularization from the date of completion of 5 years on or before 25.11.1993 for counting of NMR service rendered prior to regularization of petitioners service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6318/2015 dt.17.8.2015 as followed by the combined Hon'ble AP High Court in WP No.33936/2011 and Batch dt. 2.5.2018 (Reported in 2018 4 ALT P.6) and also orders passed in WA No.414/2020, dt. 27.8.2021 Reported in 2021 (5) ALD P.422 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to grant retrospective regularization from the date of completion of 5 years of service on or before 25.11.1993 for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6318/2015 dt.17.8.2015 which were followed by the combined Hon'ble High Court in WP No.33936/2011 and Batch dt. 2.5.2018 Reported in 2018 (4) ALT 6 and also orders passed in WA No.414/2020, dt. 27.8.2021 Reported in 2021 (5) ALD P.422 r/w Rule 13 and 14 of AP Revised Pension Rules and pass…” 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as NMR on 01.06.1988 in the 4th respondent Municipality and their services were regularized in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, F&P, dated 22.04.1994 vide G.O.Rt.No.545, MA and UD Department dated 30.09.2021 and consequential proceedings of 4th respondent dated 22.10.2021 vide Roc.No.12027/5/2017- D.Sec and Roc.No.603/2019-C1 dated 20.11.2021 prospectively from the date of issue of the order instead of from the date of completion of five years contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.212. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the regularization was made in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 212, which clearly provides that persons who had completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993 are eligible for regularization under the said G.O. Therefore, the case of the petitioners ought to have been considered for regularization with effect from 25.11.1993, as by that date they had completed more than five years of service and were thus entitled for regularization with effect from the said date. He further submits that, without considering the aforesaid aspect, the respondent authorities issued proceedings regularizing the services of the petitioners only with effect from the date of the order, i.e., 30.09.2021. 4. The respondents have filed their counter, wherein it is stated that G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 is prospective in nature and the petitioners do not come under the said G.O. It is further stated that since the regularization was made in the year 2021, they cannot seek all benefits of regularization of service retrospectively as the proceedings issued were prospective in nature and there is no illegality in the proceedings issued by fixing the date of order as the date of regularization. 5. However, a similar issue fell for consideration before this Court which was ultimately landed in the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.Srinivasulu S/o Padmabaiah & Ors vs. The Nellore Municipal Corporation & Ors 1 , wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: The leaned counsel for the appellants argued that there is no justification for restricting the benefit of regularization with effect from 27.11.2011. The opinion of the High Court that as the appellants did not approach the Tribunal till 2011 they are not entitled for the regularization on the ground of latches is not tenable. We find it difficult to accept the reasoning adopted by the High Court. The right of the appellants to seek regularization flows from the G.O.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. The appellant have been in service of the first respondent not only prior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subsequent to the issue of G.O. till today. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212 (supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for 1 (2021) 13 SCC 460 - Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015 almost 20 years with regularizing the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants’ services be regularized with effect from the date of their completing their five years continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480. 6. By following the above said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court reiterated the same in W.P.Nos.33936 of 2011 and batch2 dated 02.05.2018, and held that the petitioners are entitled for regularization from the date of completion of five years of service as, on or before 25.11.1993. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “On the above analysis, the Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the authorities concerned to extend the benefit to B.Srinivasulu (1 supra) to the employees of 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.” 7. Though the said issue was also carried before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Special Leave Petition in S.L.P.No.13818 of 2018 and batch of cases was dismissed. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4, this Court is of the considered view that, as the 2 2018 (4) ALT 6 (D.B.) petitioners had completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993, their services are liable to be regularized with effect from the said date. Although the regularization proceedings were initially issued on 30.09.2021 with prospective effect, the services of the petitioners from 25.11.1993 shall be taken into account for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. However, the petitioners shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits arising out of such retrospective regularization. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for fixation of their service with effect from 25.11.1993 for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits, with a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. It is made clear that the petitioners herein shall not be entitled to actual monetary benefits for the said period in the form of arrears of pay or allowances. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders granted earlier if any, also shall stand closed. ________________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Dated: 05.08.2026 M K K 118 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Writ Petition No. 4298 of 2023 Date: 05.08.2026 M K K