The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs Koppolu Suresh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2005 AP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                       &
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA


                      WRIT APPEAL No.178 of 2021
                      (Taken up through video conferencing)

The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Higher Education Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur,
and 2 others.                                                 .. Appellants.

        Versus

Koppolu Suresh S/o. Late Kondaiah,
Aged 55 years, Occ: Record Assistant,
V.V. and M Aided Degree College,
Ongole, Prakasam District and another.                        .. Respondents.

Counsel for the appellants : GP for Higher Education

Counsel for the respondent No.1 : Mr. M.R. Tagore

ORAL JUDGMENT Dt: 16.06.2021

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Mr. K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for Higher

Education, for the appellants, and Mr. M.R. Tagore, learned counsel

appearing for respondent No.1-writ petitioner.

This writ appeal is directed against an order dated 23.01.2020

passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.20912 of 2019 allowing the

writ petition in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in

Government of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary and others v.

N. Venkaiah, reported in 2018 (4) ALD 590 (DB).

The writ petitioner was initially appointed as an Attender on

25.08.1983 on NMR basis in V.V.&M Aided Degree College, Ongole. In

HCJ & NJS,J WA No.178 of 2021

terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department,

dated 22.04.1994, the State had formulated a scheme for regularization of

services of the persons appointed on Daily Wage/NMR or on consolidated

pay, who were continuing on the date of commencement of the Andhra

Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and

Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994. In terms of

the scheme, the services of such persons who worked continuously for a

minimum period of five years and who were continuing on 25.11.1993 are

to be regularized by the appointing authorities subject to fulfilment of

certain conditions as enumerated therein. All the Departments of

Secretariat/Heads of Departments were requested to process the cases of

absorption/regularisation of services of NMRs/Daily Wage employees etc.

in pursuance of the above scheme and obtain the clearance of

Government in Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department.

The learned single Judge relied upon the judgment in the case of

N.Venkaiah (supra), which was based on the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in B.Srinivasulu v. Nellore Municipal Corporation (Civil

Appeal No.6318 of 2015 dated 17.08.2015), and directed the

appellants herein to extend the benefit of pension and pensionary benefits

only to the writ petitioner by reckoning his service from the date of

completion of five years on or before 25.11.1993.

Mr. K.V. Raghuveer submits that services of the writ petitioner

were directed to be regularized by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.86,

Higher Education (C.E.-II.1) Department, dated 06.02.2004 and

consequent thereupon, the V.V. & M Aided Degree College regularized the

services of the writ petitioner with effect from 15.02.2005. The writ

petitioner had accepted the said position and, therefore, direction to pay

HCJ & NJS,J WA No.178 of 2021

pension and pensionary benefits with effect from completion of five years

of service, is not sustainable in law, he submits.

Mr. M.R. Tagore, on the other hand, has submitted that the order

of the learned single Judge is fully covered by the order of the Division

Bench in the case of N.Venkaiah (supra) and, therefore, no interference

is called for with regard to the aforesaid judgment. He submits that even

in the case of N.Venkaiah (supra), the petitioner therein approached the

Court long after regularization orders were passed and the same is the

position in the instant case also.

It will be appropriate to take note of the directions passed by the

learned Division Bench in the case of N.Venkaiah (supra).

"The learned Government Pleader would also point out

that some of the O.As/writ petitions were filed with substantial

delay after the regularization orders were passed, giving the

benefit of G.O.Ms.No.212 with effect from the stipulated dates

therein prospectively. She would assert that such settled

matters should not be unsettled merely because the Supreme

Court passed the subsequent order in B.SRINIVASULU. It

may however be noticed that the trajectory of developments

since the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.212, as set out hereinbefore,

demonstrates that there was no consistency even in the

orders passed by the Tribunal and this Court. Identically

situated people were treated differently. The narration supra

in relation to this very batch of cases demonstrates that the

Tribunal gave the benefit of B.SRINIVASULU to some and

denied it to others. In such a fluid and uncertain situation, an

employee cannot be blamed for seeking relief even after lapse

HCJ & NJS,J WA No.178 of 2021

of some years as there was no clarity as to the legal position.

As the Supreme Court has now settled the same by way of its

decision in B.SRINIVASULU, employees who completed five

years of service on or before 25.11.1993 and were already

regularised in service with prospective effect cannot be found

fault with for approaching this Court with some delay so as to

seek the benefit of their past service in terms of

G.O.Ms.No.212 at least for the limited purpose of their

pension and pensionary benefits.

On the above analysis, the writ petitions are disposed

of directing the authorities concerned to extend the benefit of

B.SRINIVASULU to the employees in this batch of cases by

reckoning their services from the date of completion of five

years in service, on or before 25.11.1993, for the purposes of

their pension and pensionary benefits. They shall however

not be entitled to actual monetary benefits for the said period,

in the form of arrears of pay or allowances."

On perusal of the above, we find that the case of the writ petitioner

is similar to the facts which fell for consideration in the case of

N.Venkaiah (supra) and, therefore, we are of the considered opinion

that no interference is called for with the order passed by the learned

single Judge.

Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and is dismissed.

No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                           NINALA JAYASURYA, J

                                                                          MRR

                                                     HCJ & NJS,J
                                               WA No.178 of 2021

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE &

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

WRIT APPEAL No.178 of 2021

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Dt: 16.06.2021

MRR