Sanjay Kumar, J.

1. The core issue in this batch of cases is as to the scope of regularization of services under G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994 (hereinafter, ‘G.O.Ms.No.212’). All the employees in these cases were regularized in service under the said G.O. but they seek benefit of such regularization from earlier dates.

2. W.P.No.33936 of 2011 was filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and its officials in the Panchayat Raj Department assailing the order dated 20.07.2011 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter, ‘the Tribunal’), in O.A.No.433 of 2008. The said O.A. was filed by the first respondent in the writ petition. He was appointed as a Bill Collector in the service of the Karamchedu Gram Panchayat, Prakasam District, on 01.07.1988 on temporary basis. He filed O.A.No.8588 of 2000 before the Tribunal seeking regularization of his services as a Bill Collector from the date of his initial appointment. The said O.A. was allowed on 27.04.2001 holding that he was entitled to be regularized in service with all consequential benefits. The authorities were directed to regularize his services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 with all consequential benefits within a time frame. He moved contempt proceedings before the Tribunal and the District Panchayat Officer, Prakasam District, issued proceedings dated 22.11.2002 rejecting his case for regularization. However, when personal appearance of the District Panchayat Officer was ordered by the Tribunal, G.O.Rt.No.1186, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Estt.IV) Department, dated 21.08.2007 was issued regularizing his services as a Bill Collector from the date of issuance of orders by the competent appointing authority, i.e., prospectively. Aggrieved by the denial of regularization from the date of his initial appointment with all consequential benefits in terms of the order dated 27.04.2001 in O.A.No.8588 of 2000, the first respondent/applicant filed O.A.No.433 of 2008. By the order under challenge, the Tribunal observed that the earlier order dated 27.04.2001 passed in O.A.No.8588 of 2000, holding the first respondent/applicant entitled to regularization in service as per G.O.Ms.No.212, had not been implemented until contempt proceedings were initiated before it and personal appearance of the District Panchayat Officer was ordered therein. The Tribunal noted that the authorities took six years to implement the earlier order though the time frame stipulated therein was only two months. The Tribunal accordingly held the first respondent/applicant entitled to regularization in service from July, 1993, as he had completed five years in service by then, and accordingly set aside G.O.Rt.No.1186 dated 21.08.2007 to that extent. The authorities were directed to regularize the services of the first respondent/applicant from the date on which he completed five years of continuous service, along with all consequential benefits, including notional fixation of pay, without arrears of pay. By order dated 06.02.2012, this Court granted interim suspension of the order under challenge. W.V.M.P.No.1349 of 2012 was filed by the first respondent/applicant to vacate the said order.

3. In W.P.No.20670 of 2012, respondents 1 to 3 were appointed as Non-Muster Roll (NMR) employees in Tirupathi Municipal Corporation in the year 1983. Their services were terminated in 1984 but they were again reinstated in service in 1988. When they were denied continuity of service, they approached the jurisdictional Labour Court by filing individual Industrial Disputes and basing on the awards passed therein, they were extended the benefit of continuity of service for the purpose of regularization. They then approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.2224 of 2000 seeking regularization of their services. By order dated 27.02.2001, the Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. directing the authorities to consider their claims for regularization. G.O.Rt.No.