ORDER :

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.

Since the issue to be resolved in these two writ petitions is same, I deem it appropriate to dispose of them by this common order.

2. Heard Ms. K. Manasa, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.12308 of 2021, Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.26947 of 2021, Sri J. Ugranarasimha, learned standing counsel for the respondents in W.P.No.12308 of 2021, and learned Government Pleader for Services appearing for the official respondents in W.P.No.26947 of 2021. Perused the record.

Pleadings in W.P.No.12308 of 2021

3. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not regularising the services of the petitioner as NMR either in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 or in view of his continuous service for more than ten years as NMR from 01.12.1988, as illegal and arbitrary.

4. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Man Mazdoor on NMR basis on 01.12.1988 in the respondent corporation. In the year 1995, the petitioner along with others filed W.P.No.23786 of 1995 seeking regularisation of their services as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 10.04.1997 directing the respondent corporation to consider the case of the petitioner. During pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.29232 of 1995 seeking a direction to the respondent corporation to pay the minimum time scale of pay attached to the post held by him and the said application was ordered. In compliance thereof, the 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 16.12.1995 fixed the scale of pay at Rs.1,375/- - Rs.2,375/- w.e.f. 27.11.1995. Thereafter, in pursuance of the orders dated 10.04.1997 in W.P.No.23786 of 1995, the Executive Director of the respondent corporation vide Memo dated 06.08.1997 considered and rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he did not satisfy the requirement of continuous service for a period of five years, by disengaging the services of the petitioner as NMR with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed another writ petition being W.P.No.19962 of 1997 and by an order dated 14.12.2000, this Court allowed the said writ petition. Challenging the same, the respondent corporation preferred an appeal in W.A.No.525 of 2001 which was allowed on 08.04.2001 setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. Subsequently, since the respondent corporation required the services of the petitioner, the petitioner has been continued as NMR(T) and the respondent corporation also revised the pay scale of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted representations dated 01.02.2020, 09.11.2020 and 06.01.2021 to the respondent corporation seeking to consider his case for regularization of his services. But so far, no action is initiated by the respondent corporation. Hence the writ petition.

5. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent corporation stating that in obedience of the orders of this Court dated 10.04.1997 in W.P.No.23786 of 1995, the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected as he did not satisfy the requirement of five years of continuous service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. There is every justification in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization by taking into consideration the cut-off date i.e., 25.11.1993. The petitioner was engaged on casual basis where there is no prohibition for such engagement. As the Government had issued instructions not to engage NMRs in the Government/Public enter