Employees engaged in irregular (not illegal) appointments who have rendered continuous service of ten years or more against sanctioned posts are entitled to regularization of their services as a one-time measure and consequential benefits, as the State cannot exploit long-term ad-hoc employment to deny entitlements.

ORDER :

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief:

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents not regularizing the services of the petitioners in their respective posts and existing vacancies as held by this Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.24377/2007 as confirmed in the W.A.No.782/2010 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and further direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in their respective posts As considered by the respondent’s Memo No.1037429/PRR01/2019 ESTT-II dated 19.09.2025, which is issued in implementation of judgments in O.A.No.1420/2001, O.A.No.2108/2001 and judgment in W.P.No.15089/2019 and existing vacancies from the date of their initial appointment in terms of judgment in W.P.No.27217/2017 as confirmed in W.A.No.782/2010 and pass”

2. The contents of the writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioners were initially appointed as NMR Work Technical and Non-Technical Inspectors and Watchman and Non-Technical Pump Mechanics before 25.11.1993 and they were granted Minimum pay Scales to their respective posts and posted in different places and other Government Welfare Programmes.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while the petitioners are working, the Government has issued G.O.Rt.No.747, dated 25.02.2005 wherein the Government has granted minimum time scale and D.A to the petitioners and other subsequent revision of pay scale were extended to the petitioners from time to time. Learned counsel submits that the 2^nd Respondent sent proposal to the 1^st Respondent vide Proc.CCT’s Ref.No.E4/839/2007, dated 04.08.2009, wherein it is categorically stated that there are 339 vacancies are available and proposed for regularization of services. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioners are getting all the benefits on par with the regular employees, but their services are not being regularized in spite of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgments as in the case of similarly situated persons as there are number of existing vacancies in the last grade category are available in the 2^nd Respondent’s Department.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 wherein it is categorically held in para-53 stating that the persons who have completed 10 years of services in temporary

service is entitle for regularization. But even then no action has been taken in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 10.04.2006. Subsequently in the case of State of Karnataka and another vs. M.L.Kesari and others, 2009 (8) SCC 431 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the persons who have completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006, all those persons are entitled for regularization and directed the concerned department to regularize their services and the same is also interpreted by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Kodali Raju and others vs. APSRTC, 2011 (1) ALD 234 wherein this Hon’ble Court allowed the writ petition directing the respondents therein to regularize the services of the individuals. Against which the W.A.No.782/2010 is filed and division bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the Writ Appeal on 10.05.2013 and the matter is carried to the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court also dismissed the SLP. In view of the same, the petitioners also similarly situated persona as that of the petitioners in W.P.No.24377/2007, but no action is taken for regularization, though there are existing vacancies as on the date of appointment and even as on today. Learned counsel for the

petitioners further submits that the petitioners completed more than 27 years of service in the P.R Department, if the petitioners’ servic