Nn APHC010260962021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3310]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 15123/2021 Between:

Gopu Raja Kumari and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. PALLA BALU ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES III

2. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following Order:

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“…..to issue Writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents not considering the services of the petitioners for regularization with effect from the date of G.O.Ms.No.112, dt. 23.07.1997 is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Art 14, 16 of Constitution of India and contrary to the Law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.Srinivasulu S/o Padmanbaiah and others v. The Nellore Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh and Others delivered in Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015 dated 17.08.2015 and consequently direct the respondents to pay all such service benefits, Financial benefits and pay and allowance benefits to the petitioners…….”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed a Part- time librarians on 15.11.1975, 23.01.1981, 15.10.1981, 24.07.1982, 16.04.1982 in the Village Library of goginenivaripalem village, G.Koduru Mandal in Krishna district; Raghavapuram village, Nandigama Mandal in Krishna district; Polisetty Village, A.Koduru Mandal in Krishna district; Sharemohmadpeta Village, Jagayyapeta Mandal in Krishan district and Makkapeta Vilage, Vastavai Mandal in Krishna district respectively. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 23.07.1997, ordered to extend their services with all benefits with retrospective effect. But the services of the petitioners were regularized vide G.O.Rs.No.250, dated 19.04.2022 with effect from the date of Government Order. The petitioners were retired on 31.08.2017; 31.03.2016; 31.07.2016; 31.08.2018 and 31.08.2018 respectively. This Court vide order dated 25.04.1997 in WPMP.No.2417/1996, WPMP.No.761/1997 have directed the 1^st respondent to formulate a scheme to regularize part-time employees. Accordingly, the Government of AP, after careful consideration of the issue, formulated a scheme for regularization of the services of the persons appointed on part-time basis, taking decision that the services of such persons who has been worked continuously as part time workers for a minimum period of ten years and are continuing as on

25.11.1993, the date of which the A.P (Regulation of appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 came into force and issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.112, Finance and Planning Department, dated 23.07.1997. While so, the services of the petitioners were regularized through G.O.Rt.No.250, dated 19.04.2002 instead of G.O.(P)No.112, dated 23.07.1997, which resulted in services of the petitioners have been lesser than that of actual service. Hence, the petitioners made requests to the respondents to rectify the error. But the respondents have not taken any action. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The respondents filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the petition and stated that there is no mention in G.O.Ms.No.112, Finance and Planning Department, dated 23.07.1997 for regularization of services of the petitioners with retrospective effect of the date of their completion of ten years of service. Hence, it is the policy decision of the government, who formulated the scheme of regularization of services of part- time workers from which date the services of part time workers may be regularized. The petitioners have not