THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.34991 OF 2022

ORDER:

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following relief:

“to issue writ of mandamus A. By declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the genuine claim of the petitioner for retrospective regularization i.e w.e.f the date of completion of five years of service or on or before 25.11.1993 for the purpose of his pension and pensionary benefits in terms of Judgment of Honble Apex court decided between B Srinivasulu Vs Nellore Municipality rendered in Civil Appeal No 6318 of 2015 dt17.08.2015 r/w Reported Judgment of Division Bench in 2020 6 ALD 349 AP DB and recent Judgment dt.30.09.2022 rendered in W.P No.43482 of 2018 of High Court of Andhra Pradesh and regularizing only with prospective effect vide G.O.Ms.No.67 PR and RD E I Department dt.30.06.2015 is as highly illegal and contrary to the above judicial pronouncements if necessary to set-aside the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned B. And consequently to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for extending the benefit of past service rendered by him prior to his regularization orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.67 PR and RD E I Dept dt.30.06.2015 for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits in terms of Judgment of Honble Apex court decided between B Srinivasulu Vs Nellore Municipality rendered in Civil Appeal No 6318 of 2015 dt.17.08.2015 r/w Reported Judgment of Division Bench in 2020 6 ALD 349 AP DB and recent Judgment dt.30.09.2022 rendered in W P No 43482 of

2018 of High Court of Andhra Pradesh.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as NMR Mazdoor w.e.f from 26.02.1984. Thereafter, his services were regularized with prospective manner vide G.O.Ms.No.67 (PR & RD (E.I) Department dated 30.06.2018 i.e. from the date of issuing the order instead of regularizing his services from the date of appointment. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner filed the present writ petition to count his past service rendered prior to his regularization i.e. retrospective regularization in the cadre of last grade employee, for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits.

2. Respondent No.3 – Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj Department, Vijayawada, filed counter affidavit stating that, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.67 PR & RD dated 30.06.2015 regularizing the services of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 from prospective date i.e. date of issue of the order by the competent appointing authority. Vide Memo No.573/225/A3/PC.111/97 dated 01.09.1997 vide Para 2, the Government clarified that the regularizations that are done as per G.O.Ms.No.212 giving the benefit of regular services to the persons concerned only from the date of issue of the order making it prospective. Therefore, all benefits of regularization of services will be counted only from the date of issue of order. Vide G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 30.06.2015, the Government specifically mentioned that regularization of their services shall be from prospective date i.e. date of issue of the order by the competent appointing authority. But the petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court to regularize his services with retrospective effect i.e from 25.11.1993 for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits only. The Superintending Engineer, PR Circle, Guntur also issued speaking orders vide Proceedings No.A3/WP34991/2022/NMR Court Case dated 19.07.2025 to the petitioner that he is not eligible for payment of arrears, counting of service and also pensionary benefits from

25.11.1993.

3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the action of the respondents in not reckoning the service rendered by the petitioner prior to regularization for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits is arbitrary and unsustainable. It is su