IMPORTANT POINT
The right of the appellants to seek regularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994, and the Supreme Court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of this legal provision.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. Aggrieved by an order dated 3.4.2014 the partially successful appellants who were respondents 5 to 8 in Review Writ Petition Misc. Petition No.10968 of 2013 in writ petition No.11852 of 2012 carry this matter by way of special leave to appeal.

3. From the impugned order it appears that the appellants herein were working with the first respondent Municipal Corporation on temporary basis in the year 1994. The erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.4.1994 issuing certain directions for regularizing the services of temporary and daily wage earning employees employed by the Government or the local bodies or other instrumentalities of the State subject to certain conditions. The appellants herein in spite of issuance of such an order still continued in the service of the first respondent without there being any order of regularization of their service. Therefore, they approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 1.12.2011 allowed the O.A. of the appellant herein. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows :

“In these circumstances, as the issue involved in this O.A., is squarely covered by the Orders in O.A.No.8095/2008, dated 19.1.2011 and as tire applications are entitled for regularization of service w.e.f. 16.9.1992, 19.9.1992, 14.6.1993 and 4.6.1993 on which date they completed Five years of continuous service as per G.O. Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning Department, dated 22.4.1994, the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the applicants with effect from 16.9.1992, 19.9.1992, 14.6.1993 and 4.6.1993. But the applicants are not entitled for arrears of pay and they are only eligible for notional fixation of pay and seniority. The respondents are directed to issue orders, as per the above directions, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.”

4. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent herein filed writ petition No.11852 of 2012 which was dismissed by an order dated 25.4.2012. Subsequently, the first respondent sought a review of the said order by filing Review Writ Petition Misc. Petition No.10968 of 2013. In the said review application, the impugned order came to be passed. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows :

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the review petitioner/Corporation to regularize the services of the unofficial respondents/applicants from the date of filing of the Original Applications i.e. on 27.11.2011 for the purpose of fixation of pay and notional without any monetary benefits subject to availability of vacancies.”

5. Hence the instant appeal aggrieved by the order insofar as it went against the appellants herein. Though the High Court confirmed the order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the appellant herein, the High Court restricted the regularization only with effect from the date of filing of O.A. No.9177 of 2011 dated 27.11.2011.

6. The learned 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.

7. 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 22.4.1994. 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 almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants.

8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the abov