The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the orders passed in wp (TR) No 3778 of 20.t7, dated 18-12_2023, and review orders in IA No. 1 of 2024, daled 2211112024 during the pendency of the appeal. (lnterim Prayer is amended as per Co. dt. 0610212024 vide lA No. 3 of 2025). Counsel for Appellants : SRI S.SAWANARAYANA RAO, GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondents: SRI S.GOPAL RAO The Court made the tbllowing: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA trIRIT APPEAL No.92 of 2025 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujo14 paul): Sri S. Satyanarayana Rao, learned Government pleader for Services-I, for the appellalts and Sri S. Gopal Rao, learned counsel for respondent/writ petitioner. 2 .) Heard on admission The parties have fought a long clrawn battle in the corridors of the Court.

4. The respondent/writ petitioner admittedly rendered 35 long years of service with the Department. Initially, she filed O.A. No. 6842 of 1994 before the then existing Andhra pradesh State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. on 23.ll.lgg4 directing the respondents therein to verify whether the writ petitioner has satisfactorily worked, eligible and suitable for regularization and pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, the writ petitioner again filed O.A. No.552g of 2001. The Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. on 19.08.200 1 by directing the concerned Chief Engineer to take appropriate action on proposal sent by the Superintendent Engineer within 7 one month from the date of receipt of copy of the orrler regarding ,. the prayer of regularization. The writ petirioner again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 4824 c,f 2OO5 which was dispose'7 on 09.O9.2009 by the following direct..ons:- "6. Ir-r the hght of the above circumstar-rces, thr: O.A. is disposed rrf- The respondents ale directed to pursue the matter with the Government regarding the sanction of lasl grade prost and in the event of sanction of the post the candida.brre of the applicant shall be conside.red for regularization of her services in the last grade service subject to fulfillment of other condilions as per G.O.Ms. No. 212 date,7 22.O4.1994 or G.O.Ms.No.1 12, dated 23.)7.1997 as the case may be." 5 Thereafter, the writ petitioner again filed O.A.No.2879 of 2015 u,hi,:l-r, on abolition of Tribunal, was trans,ferred to this Court and was re-registered as W.P.(TR).No.3778 of. :2017. In this transferred tC.A., the writ petitioner has ca-lled in (luestion the Iegality, validity and propriety of memo dated 05.08.i2023. In the said memo, it was stated that although there exists a sanctioned post in the last grade seryice, the writ petitionr:r does not possess the requisite qualification and therefore, her claim for regularization was rejected. Learned Single Judgr: allowed the said W.P.(TR) by order dated 18.12.2023 directing the appellants to consider the case of the writ petitioner for regular-ization with notional berre.fits in the light of her long service and pass a reasoned orcler in accordance with law within a period of eight \ weeks from the date of receipt i, of the order. Challenging the said order of learned Single Judge, the present appeal is filed. "oO,

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that two conditions must be fulfilled for grant of regularization namely: (i) existence of a vacalt post and (ii) requisite qualification for the said post. Since the writ petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification, she could not have received the benefit of regularization. Apart from this, learned Single Judge has ordered for regularization despite the fact that the writ petitioner stood retired on 28.02.2015. After retirement, question of regularization does not arise. 7 . Learned counsel for the writ petitioner supported the impugned order and submits that the writ petitioner diligently fought for her right. She has rendered 35 years of long service which itself shows that there was a continuous and reg,lar need of a post against which she has worked. The learned Single Judge has rightly relied on certain judgments of the Supreme Court and directed for regularization. 8 No other point is pressed by the parties

9. So far the question of antedated regular.i;zation is 4 concerned, in the peculiar facts of this case, it is clezu. that the writ petitioner l-Lais been fighting for regularization for tl-re last few decades. Unfortunateiy, her claim was settled by the appellants after her retirernent. Although, it cannot be forgotten that she filed her first O.r\, in the year 1994 and thereafter, filed several other O.As. for the same claim, the appellants, for the reasons best known to them, took a conscious decision only on

05.08.2023 i.e., zrlter the writ petitioner's retirement. l'hus, the writ petitioner challenged the said order after her retirerrnent and therefore, there is, no delay on the part of the writ petitioner.

10. The learned Single Judge, after relying on certain judgments of [iupreme Court, came to hold that the writ petitioner was ieltpointed through due process and ',vas duly sponsored by thLe District Employment Exchange, Nalgonda on

08.04.1980. Sl:re. rendered 35 years of service on the date of filing of O.A.No.12879 of 2015. In this backdrop and after considering the juclgment of Supreme Court in Nihal Singh and others v. State ofPunjabt, learned Single Judge opined that the sanctioned post ,1oes not fall from heaven and State has to create it as per il-s conscious choice. The State, as noticed '1zotr1 ta scc os I I i i 5 above, took decades to take a decision on the claim of a poor employee for regtlarization. The writ petitioner, in our opinion, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be a "backdoor entralt' because her name was duly sponsored by the Employment Exchange. She has rendered 35 years of service. Thus, learned Single Judge has taken a plausible view ald directed her consideration for reg,larization with retrospective elfect and with notional benefits. We do not see any merit which warrants interference bv us. I 1. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails arrd is hereby dismissed. The appellants shall implement this order positively within sixty days from the date of communication of copy of this order. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. /TTRUE COPY// SD/.T.KRISHNA KUMAR PUTY REGISTRAR ETTION OFFICER To, l.TwoCCstoGPFoRSERV|CESl,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana. touTl

2. One CC to SRI S.GOPAL RAO, Advocate' [OPUC] 3 Two CD CoPies BSK LS s STAlE ori -L HIGH COURT DATED:2010312025 { ( e o o tt Nq i DESF JUDGMENT WA.No.92 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS @f4a fu-