Entitlement to retrospective regularization and pension is affirmed, emphasizing that delay in seeking relief should not negate fundamental rights to benefits.

ORDER :

Surepalli Nanda, J.

Heard Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents.

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

“…….to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in damage of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not granting pension and retiremental benefits by granting retrospective regularization from the date of completion of 5 years of service as per the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6318/2015, dt 17/8/2015 the same has been follows by this Honourable Court in WP. No. 33936/2011 and Batch dt 2/5/2018 Reported in 2018 (4) ALT 6 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to sanction and pay the pension and retiremental benefits as per the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6318/2015, dt 17/8/2015 the same has been follows by this Honourable Court in WP. No. 33936/2011 and Batch dt 2/5/2018 Reported in 2018 (4) ALT 6 and pass.….”

3. It is the specific grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Bill collector on daily wage basis on 05.01.1987 in erstwhile Alwal municipality which subsequently merged into Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad in the year 2007. Thereafter the government issued GOMs.No.533,MA and UD dated 29.11.2011 regularizing the services of the petitioner prospectively but not retrospectively from the date of completion of 5 years of daily wage service by the petitioner herein. The petitioner further submits that in similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Srinivasulu and others vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation held that daily wage workers who were regularized are entitled to retrospective regularization from the date of completion of 5 years for the purpose of seniority and other benefits and Andhra Pradesh government had implemented the directions given by Hon’ble Supreme Court but the respondents herein however did not implement the said directions.

The petitioner further submits that this Hon’ble High Court at Hyderabad by relying on Srinivasulu and others vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation directed the respondents to implement the retrospective regularization of service for the purpose of seniority, pension and other benefits but respondents are not implementing the above directions by citing that the Srinivasulu and others vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation dated 17.08.2015 relied on M.L.Singh case judgment had been overruled by the Apex court in Manjula Bashini case reported in 2009 (4) SCC 431. Aggrieved by said action of the respondents, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

PERUSED THE RECORD:-

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition in view of the fact as borne on record that the said relief as sought for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition had been granted by the Division Bench of this Court vide its order, dated 06.03.2017 passed in W.P.No. 41797 of 2015 in respect of other individuals similarly situated persons like the petitioner herein and the said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 06.03.2017 passed in W.P.No.41797 of 2015 had been upheld by the Apex Court in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner & Ors. Vs. P.Lingamma and Others vide its judgment, dated 23.07.2024 in SLP. No.13813 of 2018 and therefore, the petit