APHC010305352018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1161 OF 2018 Between:

1. M.Varadaraju,, Aged about 57 years, 2. R.Hari,, Aged about 37 years, 3. R.Danujaya,, Aged about 45 years, 4. A.Subrahmanyam,, Aged about 47 years, 5. K.Rejendra,, Aged about 49 years, 6. M.Venugopal,, Aged about 48 years, 7. K.Raja Gopal,, Aged about 53 years, 8. K.Subrahmanyam,, Aged about 46 years, 9. K.Muni Raju,, Aged about 46 years, 10. M.Jagadishwar,, Aged about 45 years, All are R/o.Kanipakam Village, Ida Mandal, Chittoor District ...Petitioners AND

1. Sri Manmohan Singh IAS, Principal Secretary Government of Andhra Pradesh, Endowment Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Amaravathi, Vijayawada

2. Smt Anuradha, The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, AP Secretariat, Amaravathi, Gollapudi, Vijayawada Rural, 3. Sri Poornachandra Rao, Executive Officer, Sri.Vara Siddi Vinayaka Temple, Kanipakam, Irata Mandal, Chittoor District

4. G Vani Mohan, The Commissioner Endowment Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, KrishnaDistrict

5. Sri A Venkatesu, Executive, Officer, Sri Vara Siddi Vinayaka Temple, Kanipakam, Irala Manadal, Chittoor District. RR 4 and 5 Impleded as per Court Order dt.20/09/2021. Vide IA No.1 of 2021 in CC No.1161 of 2018.

6. Sri M Hari Jawaharlal, The Commissioner Endowment Department Government of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati Andhra Pradesh R 6 Impleded as per Court Order dt.02/03/2022. Vide IA No.2 of

2021 in CC No.1161 of 2018.

...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: RAJENDRA BUSSA Counsel for the Respondents: G RAMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: Counsel for the Respondents:A SREEKANTH REDDY(SC FOR ENDOW RS)

The Court made the following ORAL ORDER:

Heard Sri Rajendra Bussa, learned Counsel for the Contempt Petitioners and Sri G. Ramana Rao, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.5.

2. The present Contempt Case is filed complaining of inaction on the part of the Respondents in complying with the Order of this Court dated 21.04.2017 in W.P.No.26001 of 2008. The operative portion of the Order of this Court dated 21.04.2017, which according to the Petitioners has not been complied with is usefully extracted hereunder :

“In the decision in Uma Devi (1 supra) the Supreme Court held as follows:

.....In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub-judice, need not be repined based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.

Thus, the Supreme Court opined that there is a justification to consider the case of certain class of employees who have put in 10 years of such service (ad hoc or temporary). Having regard to the facts and submissions, this Court is satisfied that this writ petition can be disposed of, with certain directions.

11. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the cases of the petitioners 1, 3 to 11 and 13 for regularization of their services subject to their eligibility as per the precedential guidance in the decision of the Supreme Court (1 supra) and pass appropriate orders in strict accord