ORDER :

Heard Sri B.G. Ravindera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Raj Kumar Rudra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents’ co-operative society and learned G.P. for Irrigation and Command Area Development.

2. The petitioner filed this writ petition to issue a writ, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner is illegal and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on par with his Juniors, with all consequential benefits from the date of their regularization.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows :

(a) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Salesman in the respondent society on daily wages w.e.f. 31.12.1983. Since then the petitioner worked continuously in the respondent society, subject to artificial breaks given now and then.

(b) The petitioner was terminated from service w.e.f. 20.05.1988. Questioning the said termination order, the petitioner raised I.D.no.472 of 1989 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani. The Industrial Tribunal passed award on 28.10.1991 directing the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuous service and all other attendant benefits, except the back wages.

(c) Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 01.06.1992 as a salesman, which is equivalent to the post of Junior Assistant and completed 31 years of continuous service.

(d) The petitioner is entitled for regularization in service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, as he completed more than five years of service by the cut off date and that several juniors to him, who were appointed much later has already been regularized in service.

(e) The service particulars of the petitioner juniors are as under :

(f) Therefore, the action of the respondents in not regularizing the petitioner’s services is highly arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory. As such, the present writ petition is filed.

4. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is as follows :

(a) The respondents admitted the appointment of the petitioner as Daily Wager at Jagtial Sales Emporium, Karimnagar Division on 13.12.1983. The petitioner was removed on 25.05.1986 and after lapse of some days, he was again provided employment from 25.03.1987. the petitioner was again removed from service on 20.05.1988.

(b) The respondents did not dispute that the petitioner filed I.D.No.472 of 1989 before the Industrial Tribunal, which was disposed of on 28.10.1991, directing the Management to reinstate the petitioner into service. The petitioner was reinstated into service on 01.06.1992 with continuity of service and with attendant benefits, but without any arrears thereof duly setting aside the order of removal dated 20.05.1988 as per the orders of the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that his post is equivalent to the post of Junior Assistant is not correct, since he was engaged to work in the Commercial side.

(c) The petitioner cannot claim regularization of services on par with one Kum M. Kalavathi and Sri G.S. Anna Rao, K. Nageswar Rao, M.V.S. Kusuma, N. Venkata Subbaiah and P. Kavitha are appointed on consolidated wages and hence, they had been absorbed as Junior Assistants. As the appointment orders were not in concurrence with the provisions laid down under Section 116(c) Rule 28 and 36(b) of APCS Act, 1964 and also not fulfilled the terms and conditions contained i