IMPORTANT POINT
Regularization of services requires adherence to specific legal provisions and conditions, necessitating a thorough evaluation of employment terms and rights.

JUDGMENT :

G. Narendar, J.

Heard Sri S.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri S.N. Chidambara Sastry, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant; Ms. Steffe, learned counsel representing Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner; and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

2. The present writ appeal is directed against the order dated 25.01.2023 rendered by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.23557 of 2009.

3. The abovementioned writ petition was preferred by respondent No.1 herein for the following relief :

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction; more particularly, one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus by setting aside that portion of G.O.Ms.No.2500 dated 20.11.2007 issued by the 2nd Respondent and consequential proceedings Roc.No.D4/1582/DEO/2004, dated 30.08.2008 issued by the 1st Respondent in regularizing the Petitioner in last grade service, that too with effect from 20.11.2007 by holding the action of the Respondents in not regularizing the Petitioner with effect from 20.11.1990 as Store Keeper, the post and work the Petitioner was holding since her appointment while regularizing several others/juniors in the cadre of they were working and with effect from their initial date of appointment as bad, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents to regularize the service of Petitioner as Store Keeper with effect from 20.11.1990 and not doing so as bad, illegal, unconstitutional and discriminatory and pass such other order or further orders as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4. By the order under appeal, the learned single Judge has been pleased to dispose of the writ petition as under :

“In view of the aforesaid reasoning, this Court found that the petitioner is entitled for regularisation of her services as Storekeeper, in Sri Padmavathi Women’s Polytechnic Hostel, Tirupathi, in the pay scales attached to the said post from the date of her initial appointment i.e., 20.11.1990. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of her services in the post of store keeper in the pay scale attached to the post from the date of her initial appointment i.e., 20.11.1990 and fix her pay notionally till regularising her services i.e., 20.11.2007 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.2500 and from 20.11.2007 the petitioner is entitled for all monetary and attendant benefits. The respondents shall complete the above exercise within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the learned single Judge erred in granting a Mandamus directing regularization of the services of the writ petitioner from the date of her initial appointment. He would submit that the learned single Judge, having not considered the merits of the matter, could not have granted such relief.

6. We have perused the relief granted. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the writ petitioner has been seeking for consideration of her prayer i.e., for regularization of her services from an anterior date, which the appellant has failed to accede to. It is seen that the learned single Judge has not entered upon the merits of the claim of the writ petitioner much less made any assessment as to whether the other workers with whom the writ petitioner was seeking parity are indeed juniors or whether the terms of employment of those other workers are similar to the terms of employment of the writ petitioner. These are facts that are required to be ascertained before any relief for regularization of services from an anterior date could have been granted.

7. Be that as it may, the law in this regard is no more res integra as the Hon’ble Apex Court has already considered the scope and ambit of the A