1. Contempt case alleging non-compliance with writ order directing consideration of regularization of employees. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(AP) 1438
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.
M.Varadaraju - Appellant
Vs.
Sri Manmohan Singh IAS, Principal Secretary Government of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Contempt Case No. 1161 Of 2018
Decided On : 18-12-2025
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rajendra Bussa
For the Respondent: G Ramana Rao, A Sreekanth Reddy(SC FOR ENDOW RS)
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rajendra Bussa
For the Respondent: G Ramana Rao, A Sreekanth Reddy(SC FOR ENDOW RS)
Age relaxation can be granted for the regularization of contract or ad-hoc employees who have completed significant service to ensure social justice, even if the original court order did not explicitly mandate such relaxation.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Regularization of services - Age relaxation - Grant of liberty to seek regularization when denied on grounds of crossing the maximum age limit - In light of various Supreme Court precedents, it is settled that in appropriate cases, the age bar for regularization can be relaxed, especially for employees who have served for a significant period. (Para 11)
(B) Social Justice - Duty of State instrumentalities to promote welfare and eliminate inequalities in status and opportunity - Courts should lean in favor of the weaker sections when scales are evenly balanced to ensure equality and secure social justice for the deprived. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
A contempt case was filed alleging non-compliance with a court order directing the respondents to consider the regularization of services for petitioners who had worked for ten years or more in sanctioned posts. The respondents regularized some petitioners but declined others on the ground that they had crossed the maximum age limit of 38 years prescribed under the statute, arguing that the original order did not explicitly deal with the relaxation of age.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the respondents had complied with the order, albeit with some delay. However, it noted that the refusal to regularize certain employees solely based on the age limit was contrary to the principle that age relaxation is permissible in appropriate cases, as supported by multiple decisions of the apex court.
Issues: Whether employees denied regularization on the ground of exceeding the maximum age limit are entitled to age relaxation based on judicial precedents.
Ratio Decidendi: Since it is settled law that in appropriate cases, the age can be relaxed to ensure social justice and recognize long-term service, the court deemed it appropriate to grant liberty to those who were denied regularization due to crossing the maximum age limit.
Result: Contempt Case disposed of by granting liberty to those who have been denied regularization on the basis of crossing the maximum age limit of 38 years.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- labour and service law
Table of Contents
2. Contention that denial of regularization on age ground is contrary to law permitting age relaxation. (Para 4 )
3. Court found respondents complied with order though with delay, but age relaxation is settled law. (Para 4 , 11 )
4. In regularization matters, age can be relaxed in appropriate cases following settled law. (Para 11 )
5. Contempt case disposed granting liberty to those denied regularization on age ground. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. Can age be relaxed for regularization of employees who have worked for many years?
Yes, settled law permits age relaxation in appropriate cases for regularization of long-serving employees. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
7. Does denial of regularization solely on age bar violate legal principles?
Yes, denial based solely on age limit without considering relaxation is contrary to established law. (Para 4 , 11 )
The Court made the following ORAL ORDER:
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.
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 accordance with the procedure established by law. The necessary exercise in this regard shall be completed by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to state that any decision taken and the order made by the respondents shall be communicated to the petitioners within a reasonable time.”
3. Respondent No.5 in the present Contempt Case has filed the Counter Affidavit along with certain Proceedings issued by the Commissioner to the Endowment dated 20.07.2018 and Proceeding of the Executive Officer dated 24.08.2018. In the Proceeding of the Commissioner dated 20.07.2018, it has been stated that after verification of the record of the Petitioners, some of the Petitioners who are eligible have been regularized and that the Petitioner Nos.6 & 12 in the Writ Petition have expired. It is also stated that some of the Petitioners have crossed the maximum age limit of 38 years as prescribed under the Statute. Since the Order passed in the Writ Petition, does not deal with relaxation of age, the Commissioner has considered the maximum age limit of 38 years and had regularized such of those persons who are below the said age limit and had declined to regularize the persons who have crossed 38 years of age.
4. Having considered these Proceedings, this Court is of the view that the Respondents herein have complied with the Order of the Court, though with some delay. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that some of the Petitioners who have been declined the relief on the ground of exceeding age limit is contrary to law, inasmuch as the Respondents ought to have relaxed the age because such relaxation is permitted as referred in the Judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under :
5. In Para Nos.23 and 2
