The court ruled that delay in addressing a regularization request does not negate the right to retrospective benefits, especially under government orders and constitutional provisions.

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education.

2. Prayer sought in the Writ Petition is as under:

"Hence in the interest of Justice, it is humbly it is humbly prayed to issue a Writ order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the petitioner service with retrospective effect from the date of 25.11.1993 as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dt.22.4.1994 and in terms of Honourable Apex Court Judgment in terms of B. Srinivasulu Vs Nellore Municipal Corporation in Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015 dated 17.08.2015 with all consequential benefits by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 23.02.2022 issued by the 2^nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, discrimination and contrary to orders of this Honourable Court and Honourable Apex Court apart from violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to extend the benefit of regularization of the service of the petitioner with retrospective effect from the date of 25.11.1993 in terms of Honourable Apex Court Judgment in terms of B. Srinivasulu Vs Nellore Municipal Corporation in Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015 dated 17.08.2015 with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner

3. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the Writ Petitioner has joined as Assistant Store Keeper on or about 15.11.1998 in the Respondent No.4 College (The S.K.R. College for Women, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District) for a salary of Rs.180/- per month; that the Writ Petitioner has filed W.P.No.2518 of 2007 along with two other persons before this Court for seeking regularisation; that, vide Order dated 09.10.2009 (Ex.P.6), the learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to dispose of the said Writ Petition with a direction to the Government (Respondent No.1) and the Director of Collegiate Education (Respondent No.2) to consider the question as to whether the Writ Petitioners, who are working in the hostel are eligible to be considered for regularisation with a further direction to pass appropriate orders within three months; that in pursuance of the directions of the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2518 of 2007 dated 09.10.2009, the Official Respondents have issued Memo No.2440/CE.II-1/2007-7 dated 24.03.2011 rejecting the claim of the Writ Petitioners; that having been aggrieved by the Memo dated 24.03.2011, the Writ Petitioner and two others have filed W.P.No.11976 of 2011 seeking regularisation as per the G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 24.04.1994. Learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to allow W.P.No.11976 of 2011, vide Order dated 05.03.2012. By setting aside the impugned Memo No.2440/CE.II- 1/2007-7 dated 24.03.2011, the Learned Single Judge, while allowing the Writ Petition was pleased to remand the matter to the Respondents with a direction to consider the matter afresh taking into consideration the definition of the Education Institution and pass appropriate Orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order.

4. It is further submitted that, due to non-compliance of the Order of the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11976 of 2011 dated 05.03.2012, the Writ Petitioner along with two others were compelled to file contempt case bearing C.C.No.1357 of 2012; that the Learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the contempt case, vide Order dated 01.04.2014,