Tuesday, 09, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

D Sathar Saheb vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6607 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6607 AP
Judgement Date : 8 September, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
D Sathar Saheb vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 8 September, 2022
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

                      W.P.No.22489 of 2020

ORDER:-

       The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India to declare the G.O.Ms.No.333, dated

23.09.2011 as illegal, arbitrary in regularizing the petitioners'

service from the date of G.O. which is contrary to law as held by

this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court and consequently set aside

the said G.O. and regularize the petitioners' service retrospectively

from the date of completion of five (5) years from the appointment

for the purpose of claiming the pensionary benefits.


2.     Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Services-IV appearing for the

respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1st

petitioner was appointed as a pump operator-cum-watchman

through proceedings Rc.No.21/86, dated 01.10.1986 and joined

his duty in the 5th respondent Office. The 2nd petitioner was

appointed as a sweeper and subsequently as a pump operator-

cum-watchman vide proceedings dated 01.10.1985. Both the

petitioners were regularized vide G.O.Ms.No.333, dated

23.09.2011.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that

regularizing the service of the petitioners prospectively is bad and

that the respondents failed to consider the service of the

petitioners from the date of joining the Office as they have

completed five (5) years service as contemplated under

G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. Hence, the petitioners would

submit that their services ought to have been regularized on

completion of five years from the date of appointment and thus

prayed to set aside the said G.O. and regularize the petitioners on

completion of five years from the date of appointment.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader would

contend that the petitioners are not entitled for regularization of

their services from the date of joining as they were temporary

employees and that their appointment is not in terms of the

G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 and the same is not applicable

to the petitioners herein and G.O.(P).No.112, dated 23.07.1997 is

applicable to the petitioners, as such the petitioners' services were

regularized as per G.O.Ms.No.333, dated 23.09.2011. He relied on

the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "State of Tamil Nadu

through Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and

Registration Department, Secretariat and another Vs. A.

Singamuthu1" and "Surendra Kumar and Others Vs. Greater Noida

Industrial Development Authority and Others 2". He would further

contend that as the petitioners were appointed on temporary

basis, as such their services were regularized as per

G.O.Ms.No.333, dated 23.09.2011.

6. The contention of the respondents is that, the petitioners

were initially appointed as temporary employees. Hence,

G.O.(P).No.112, dated 23.07.1997 is applicable to the petitioners

and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. On going through the

G.O.Ms.No.333, dated 23.09.2011, it explicitly indicates that the

petitioners were appointed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance

(PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994. In view of the assertion in

G.O.Ms.No.333, dated 23.09.2011, the contention of the

petitioners that G.O.(P).No.112, dated 23.07.1997 is applicable

has no room to stand and the issue involved in the present case is

with regard to the regularization of service either prospectively or

retrospectively for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

(2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 113

(2015) 14 Supreme Court Cases 382

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Order

passed by this Court in "Government of Andhra Pradesh

represented by its Principal Secretary, PR & RD Department and

others Vs. N. Venkaiah and others3". He further relied on the Order

dated 26.09.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.14788 of 2019,

Order dated 15.10.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.1425 of

2019, Order dated 12.02.2021 passed by this Court in

W.P.No.34552 of 2016, Order dated 22.09.2021 passed by this

Court in W.P.No.36199 of 2017 and thus, prayed to allow the Writ

Petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the

Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "B. Srinivasulu Vs. The

Nellore Municipal Corporation4" and "District Collector/Chairman &

Others Vs. M.L. Singh & Others5" wherein it was held that the

incumbents therein have to be regularized with effect from the

date of their completing five years continuous service.

9. On enunciation of the law and on considering the catena of

decisions filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it

indicates that the services of the incumbent was reckoned from

the date of completion of five (5) years in service, for the purposes

2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 150

2015 SCC OnLine SC 1797

2009 (8) SC 480

of their pension and pensionary benefits. Moreover, the decisions

relied upon by the learned Assistant Government Pleader are not

applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case as it

was held that the continuance in service for long period on part-

time or temporary basis confers no right to seek regularization of

service retrospectively and it does not relate to the issue raised in

the present Writ Petition.

10. Hence, considering the submissions made by both the

learned counsel, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ

Petition by directing the respondents to regularize the service of

the petitioners' retrospectively i.e., on completion of five years from

the date of appointment, for the purpose of claiming their pension

and pensionary benefits. It is however made clear that the

petitioners are not entitled to actual monetary benefits for the said

period in the form of arrears of pay.

11. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date:08-09-2022 EPS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

W.P.No.22489 of 2020

Date:08-09-2022

EPS

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter