The court upheld the right to retrospective regularization of services and pension benefits under Article 300-A, emphasizing that prolonged service cannot be disregarded.

ORDER :

(SUREPALLI NANDA, J.)

Heard Sri Nayakaw adi Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under :

“...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering claim of the petitioner for regularization of their services from the date of their initial appointment from 29.05.2003 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, apart from violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services retrospectively from the date of their initial appointment from 29.05.2003 for the purpose of granting of annual grade increments, for promotion and old pension scheme, Telangana increment 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.”

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners were appointed as Multipurpose Health Assistants (Male) on a contract basis through a regular recruitment process pursuant to G.O.Rt.No.217 HM&FW dated 26.02.2001 and G.O.Rt.No.459 dated 22.05.2002. The selection was completed through a written examination, and appointment orders were issued vide Proc.Rc.Nos.E/29/MAL/2002-03 and RC/1551/2002-03 dated 29.05.2003, for 2324 posts, with a 100% gross salary, comprising Pay, Dearness Allowance (DA), and House Rent Allowance (HRA), in the Revised Pay Scale 1999 of Rs.3550–7150. Despite fulfilling all eligibility conditions and rendering over 20 years of uninterrupted and satisfactory service, the services of the petitioners remained contractual until G.O.Ms.No.38 Finance Department dated 30.04.2023 and G.O.Ms.No.51 Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department dated 03.05.2023 had been issued which regularized their services only with prospective effect, thereby denying the petitioners annual grade increments, promotional avenues, and pensionary benefits. It is further the case of the petitioners that as per G.O.Ms.No.16 Finance (HR-I) Department dated 23.02.2016, read with Section 10-A of the A.P. Public Employment Act, 1994, the petitioners satisfy all the prescribed conditions for regularization from the date of their initial appointment.

4. It is the specific case of the petitioners that, in spite of repeated requests made by the petitioners to consider their claim for regularization of their services retrospectively from the date of their initial appointment i.e., from 29.05.2003, for the purpose of granting of annual grade increments, for promotions, and for the benefits of the old pension scheme, the respondents have not considered their requests as on date. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the subject issue in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 24.11.2022, passed in W.P.No.7343 of 2019 in the case of Yata Satireddy v. State of Telangana . The relevant portion paragraph No.15 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder :

“15. This Court opines that the petitioner cannot be deprived of his constitutional right for pension except by authority of law since pension is not a bounty, but property within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances and Rule 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pr