Regularization of services for daily wage employees requires strict adherence to eligibility criteria established by statutory rules; prolonged service without eligibility does not confer a right to permanency.

JUDGMENT :

G. Narendar, J.

Heard Sri G. Srinivasulu Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the Appellant; Sri S. Syam Sunder Rao, Learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner; and learned G P (S-IV) appearing for Respondents 2 and 3.

2. The Appellant is the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Praja Parishad, Eluru, West Godavari District, and is before this Court in this intra-Court Appeal being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge rendered in W.P.No.474 of 2021, dated 05.01.2023.

3. The parties are referred to in this Appeal by their nomenclature before the learned Single Judge for the sake of brevity and convenience.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that his demand for regularization has been accepted by the Tribunal and also this Court and in that view, he is entitled for counting of his service from the day he was first employed and that the learned Single Judge was right in allowing the Writ Petition and directing that his entitlements be settled within a stipulated period.

5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has taken the Court through various orders passed by the Tribunal and the Composite High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh and this High Court.

6. It is pertinent to trace the judicial "Long March" of the Petitioner at the outset itself.

(i). The material placed on record would reveal that the petitioner initially filed O.A.No.377 of 1996 praying for a direction to the Respondents to pay the applicant the arrears of salary based on confirmation and revised scale with effect from 30.11.1987 to 03.09.1995 with all consequential benefits. The Tribunal placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 and after taking note of the fact that the services of the Petitioner were regularized pursuant to the said G.O., proceeded to hold that there was no provision which prohibited payment of arrears of salary from the date of initial appointment and proceeded to grant a relief pursuant to the order of regularization, regularizing the services of the Petitioner with effect from 10.07.1995. The same came to be disposed of by order, dated 17.09.1997. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent approached the High Court in W.P.No.22873 of 2004. The said Writ Petition came to be rejected without being admitted. But, while so rejecting, the High Court was pleased to reserve liberty to the Respondent to seek review of the order, dated 17.09.1997, and the Writ Petition came to be disposed of on 10.12.2004. The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the said liberty, preferred Review WPMP No.33050 of 2005 questioning the grant of liberty to the Respondent to approach the Tribunal and seek review of the order, dated 17.09.1997. The High Court was pleased to review the order and after hearing the parties was pleased to recall the liberty reserved to the Respondent to approach the Tribunal for seeking review of the order, dated 17.09.1997. Thereby, the order of the Tribunal, dated 17.09.1997, was given a stamp of finality.

(ii). Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred O.A.No.3368 of 2007 praying for grant of career advancement scheme increments for 8 and 16 years from the date of his initial appointment and regularization i.e. from 30.11.1987 and to pay arrears of increments from that date onwards. The said O.A. also came to be allowed. While allowing, the Tribunal was pleased to place reliance on G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, but, rejected the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.430, dated 14.11.1