S. PARVATHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners in this Writ Petition, numbering fifteen, seek a Writ of mandamus for a declaration that they are entitled for regularisation of their services from the dates of their appointment in their respective posts and directing the respondents to pay them the salary attached to the respective regular posts etc.

( 2 ) IN the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition it is stated that the petitioners have been continuously working without any break and that they have been discharging their duties like regular employees and yet from the date of their appointment they are being paid only a consolidated salary of rs. 400/- per month. It is also stated that they approached the respective authorities to give them regular scales of pay or at least increase their consolidated salary, but to no effect. They also made representations to the 4th respondent i. e. , the District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, to consider their cases for-regularisation of their services; that also had no effect.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the Judgment of the supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Paira Singh and Dharwad P. W. D. Eemployees Assn. vs. State of Karnataka and submits that the petitioners who have been working continuously for long periods should be regularized and paid regular wages. He also relies on Article 43 of the Constitution of India. The learned Advocate General submits that in view of Section 7 of the Andhra pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 ("the Act" for short) the petitioners do not have "a right to claim for regularisation of services on any ground whatsoever" and that their services "shall be liable to be terminated at any time without any notice and without assigning any reasons". He also relies on Section 9 of the Act. In reply, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relies on G. O. Ms. No. 212, Finance and Planning (FW. PC. III) Department, dated 22-4-1994, the order of the Supreme Court in G. Mallaiah vs. State of Andhra pradesh and the decision of this Court in Govt. of A. P. and others vs. A. Narnyana swamy and others.

( 4 ) RECENTLY, in P. Babaiah vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh we considered the case of a full-time Masalchi working continuously in a Munsif Magistrate s court from 15-3-1985. In that case, the learned Advocate General did not dispute that the said Masalchi was a daily wage employee as defined in clause (ii) of Section 2 of the Act and that as he completed five years by 25-11-1993 he was attracted by G. O. Ms. No. 212 and that he would be entitled to the benefits thereunder if he satisfied the conditions for regularisation specified therein. In view of the cases of G. Mallaiah and A. Narayana Swamy, we held that he was entitled to the implementation of that G. O. for regularising him observing that under Rule5 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Last Grade Service rules, 1992 the qualification for appointment to the post of Masalchi was only the ability to read and write Telugu or Urdu or English or Hindi and that as his services were not terminated in spite of the provisions under section 7 of the Act, it was obvious that they were required and that all these aspects should be taken into consideration in regularisation of his services.

( 5 ) IN the affidavit in support of the present Writ Petition it is stated that the 1st petitioner is working as a fulltime Masalchi in the II Additional District court at Guntur, that the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are working as Thotis in principal District Court at Guntur, that the 4th petitioner is working as gardener in Principal Munsif Magistrate s Court at Repalle in Guntur District and that the remaining petitioners are workingas Masalchies in various Courts in the Unit of the District Judge, Guntur. In the additional affidavit of the 1st petitioner dated 20-11-1996, given on behalf of the petitioners, their particulars are stated as fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document