HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.23403 OF 2019

ORDER:

Heard Sri Boya Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing on behalf of respondent Ns.1 and 2 and Sri Ch.Satish Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.

2. With the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of.

3. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of I ndia seeking 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 2^nd respondent in rejecting the proposals of the 3^rd respondent for regularization of the petitioner on retrospectively communicated by proceedings in Memo. Rc.No.B1/3171/2019, dated 03-08-2019 of the 2^nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same and consequently to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner with retrospective basis with effect from 14-01-1997 with all consequential benefits like seniority, revision of pay scales, 1999, 2003, 2008 and 2013 and pensionery benefits and to pass...”

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the subject issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Common Order of this Court dated 02.05.2018 passed in W.P. No.33936 of 2011 and batch and the order dated 23.07.2024 passed in W.P. No.19374 of 2024 and requests this Court to pass similar order in the present Writ Petition. The same is not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing on behalf of respondent Ns.1 and 2.

5. PERUSED THE RECORD A) The relevant portion of the order dated

02.05.2018 passed in W.P.No.33936 of 2011.

“As already pointed out, when no regular exercise was ever undertaken in any Department to assess the vacancy position so as to immediately extend benefit to those covered by G.O.Ms.No.212, it is not open to the State to now come forward and say that there were no vacancies as on the date that the employees in question completed five years in service, on or before 25.11.1993. A mere assertion in this regard is nothing short of an unsupported self-serving ipse dixit on the part of the State and its instrumentalities and cannot be accepted at face value. Further, the facts in some of the cases on hand clearly demonstrate that despite clear vacancies being available, no timely steps were taken. Further, when such employees were retained in service for decades together, the necessity to continue them as per the workload is manifest and clearly demonstrated, requiring no further evidence. In such a situation where the State and its instrumentalities are responsible for the situation where it cannot be assessed now as to whether Condition No.5 in G.O.Ms.No.212 stood fulfilled as on the date of completion of five years in service by the employees concerned, the benefit of doubt would invariably have to be given to the said employees and not to the State. It is perhaps this very aspect that weighed with the Supreme Court in B.SRINIVASULU¹ as no mention was made therein of strict compliance with Condition No.5 in G.O.Ms.No.212, despite the said issue being brought up by the Nellore Municipal Corporation.

The question of the State Exchequer being saddled with additional expenditure in relation to such regularization does not arise, as the relief already granted to some of the employees in the cases on hand is to reckon their services upon completion of five years on or before 25.11.1993 only for the purpose of their pension and pensionary benefits. They are not to be given any monetary benefits in the form of arrears of pay or otherwise. Similar relief would have to be extended to those employees who were non-suited by the Tribunal and are before this Court. As all of them served the State or its instrumentalities for decades together, extending to them the benef