HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 34114 OF 2016

O R D E R:

Petitioner seeks to direct Respondents to regularize his services as Clerk-cum-Bill Collector from the date of his initial appointment on 01.11.1981, instead of the prospective date ie. 23.09.2011 as per G.O.Ms.No.327, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, dated 23.09.2011, and to grant all consequential benefits, including seniority, pay fixation, and pensionary benefits. The Petitioner further prays for setting aside the condition in Para No.5 of G.O.Ms.No.327, dated 23.09.2011, which stipulates that regularization shall be effective from the prospective date i.e. the date of issuance of the order.

2. Petitioner states that he was appointed as Clerk- cum-Bill Collector in the Gram Panchayat Lachannagudem, Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District, vide Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Lachannagudem of Vemsoor Mandal No.14/1981, dated 01.11.1981, on a consolidated pay of Rs.150/- per month. He passed SSC examination in 1983, thereby acquiring the necessary educational qualification for regularization. Petitioner contends that he rendered continuous service for over 30 years, initially, as a part-time employee and later as a regularized employee, until his retirement on 30.06.2016.

Petitioner relies on G.O.(P) No.112, Finance (PC-III)

Department, dated 23.07.1997, issued by the 2^nd Respondent, which provided for regularization of services of employees who had completed 10 years of service and possessed requisite educational qualifications. He submits that he fulfilled the eligibility criteria under the said G.O., having completed more than 10 years of service by 1997 and possessing the SSC qualification since 1983. Petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT) by filing O.A.No.8652 of 2001, seeking regularization of his services in terms of G.O.(P) No.112, dated 23.07.1997. The APAT vide order dated 05.12.2001, disposed the O.A. in terms of the order in O.A.No.8241 of 2001, dated 20.11.2001, directing the Respondents to examine Petitioner’s case along with other eligible candidates for regularization as per G.O.(P) No.112. Petitioner alleges that despite Tribunal’s direction, Respondents failed to act promptly and kept his case pending for a decade. It was only pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.327, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, dated 23.09.2011 that the 1^st Respondent permitted regularization of services of 12 part-time employees, including Petitioner, whose name was listed at Serial No.9 in the annexure to the G.O. Petitioner’s services were regularized as a Bill Collector vide Proceedings dated 26.12.2011, issued by the 5^th Respondent and he was posted at Gram Panchayat, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. However, the grievance of petitioner is that regularization was made effective prospectively from 23.09.2011, as stipulated in Para No.5 of G.O.Ms.No.327, which mandated that regularization be subject to the condition that vacancies are clear, regular, and continued, and that no senior eligible person is overlooked. According to petitioner, prospective regularization from 23.09.2011 is arbitrary, unjust, and violative of his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He argues that having rendered continuous service since 01.11.1981 and fulfilled the eligibility criteria under G.O.(P) No.112 as early as 1997, his services ought to have been regularized from the date he became eligible, i.e., 01.11.1991 (after completing 10 years of service) or at least from the date of issuance of G.O.(P) No.112, i.e., 23.07.1997. The delay in regularization was solely attributable to Respondents’ inaction and cannot be used to deny him retrospective regularization.

It is further stated that condition in Para No.5 of G.O.Ms.No.327, restricting regularization to a prospective date, is discriminatory and contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi1 which mandates