High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ decraring the impugned GoMs.No.327 panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Estt.lV) Dept. dt.23-09 -2011 of the 1st Respondent and the consequentiar proceedings in Rc.No.p2l2298t2014 dt.26-12-2011 and proc. No.P2127512016 dt.24-os-2016 of the 5th Respondent in regurarizing the services of the Petitioner w-e.f. 09-03-20i 3 instead of regurarizing the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. the date of compretion of 10 years of service as Bi[ coflector or w.e.f . 23-07-1997 in terms of Go(p) No.'1 r2 Finance (pc.ilr) dt.23-07-1997 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Articres 14 and r6 of constitution of rndia and the orders passed by the Hon'ble APAT in 0.A.N0.8652 of 2001 dt.05-12-2001 and O.A.No.8241 of 2001 dt.20-11-2001 consequently setaside the impugned GOMs.No.327 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Dept. dt.23-09-20i 1 of the 1st Respondent and the consequential proceedings in Rc.No.P2l229812014 dt.26- 12-2011 and the and Proc. No.P2l275l2O16 dt.24-05-2016 of the 5th Respondent to the extent indicated above with a direction to the Respondent Authorities to regularize the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. the date of issue of GO(P).No 1 12 d1.23-O7 -1997 with all consequential benefits l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 42085 OF 2016) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue an interim direction, directing the Respondents to consider the claim of the Petitioner for regularization w.e_f. the date of issue of GO(P).No.112 Finance (PC.ll) dt.23-07-1997 fot the purpbse of granting pension pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. KANUMURI KALYANI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to5: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI K. PRADEEP REDDY (sc FoR TS Z|LLA PARTSHADS) The Court made the foltowing: ORDER I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA U/RIT PETITIO N No. 34114 OF 2016 ORDER: Petitioner seeks to direct Respondents to regularize his scrvices as Clerk cum-Bill Collector from the date of his initial appointment on O 1. 1 1.1981, instead of the prospective date ie. 23.09.2011 as per G.O.Ms.No.327, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, dated 23.O9.2O11, and [o grant all consequential benehts, including seniority, pay hxation, and pensionary benehts. The Petitioner further prays for setting asidc the condition in Para No.5 of G.O'Ms No'327, dated 23.Og.2Oll, which stipulates that regularization shall be effective from the prospective date i.e. the date of issuance of the orde r.

2. Pctitioner states that he was appointed as Clerk- cum-Bill Collcctor in the Gram Panchayat Lachannagr-rdem, Vemsoor Mandal. Khammam District, uide Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Lachannagudem of Vemsoor Mandal No'14/1981, dated 01.11- 1981, on a consolidated pay of Rs' 15O/- per month' He passed SSC examination in 1983, thereby acquiring the necessary cducational qualification for regularization Petitioner contends that he rendered continuous service for over 30 years, 2 initially, as a part-time cmployee and later as a regularized employee, until his retire ment on 30.O6.2016' Petitioner relies on G O.(P) No.112, Frnance (Pc-lll) Department, dated 23.07. 1997, issued by the 2"d Respondent, which provided for regularization of services of employees who had completed 10 years of service and possessed requisite educational qualihcations. He submits that he fulfilled the eligibility criteria under the said G.O., having completed more than 10 years of scrvice by 1997 and possessing the SSC qualification since 1983. Pc[itioner approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT) by hling 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 uide order dated O5.l2.2OOl , clisposed the O.A in terms of the order in O.A.No.8241 of 2OO1, dated 20.ll-2OO1, directing the Respondents to examine Petilioner's case along with other eligible candidates for regularization as per G.O.(P) No' 112' Petitioner dleges lhat clespite Tribunal's direction, Respondents failed to act promptly and kept his case pending for a decade lt was only pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.327, Pandnayat Raj & Rurai Development Department, dated 23.O9 -2O11 that the l"t 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 uide Proceedings dated 26.12.2011 , issued by the sth Respondent and he was posted at Gram Panchayat, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District' However' the grievance of petitioner is that regularization was made e ffective prospectively from 23 'O9 2O I 1 ' 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[hatnosenioreligiblepersonisoverlooked. According to petitioner, prospective regularization from 23.Og.2}ll is arbitrary, unjust, and violative of his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India He argues tha[ having rendered continuous service since O1.11.1981 and fulhlled the eligibility criteria under G'O'(P) No.1l2 as early as 7gg7 ' his services ought to have been regularizcd from the date he became eligible' i'e ' 01 1 1' 1991 (after completing 1O years of service) or at ieast 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 andCannotbeusedtodenyhimretrospectiveregularization. It is further stated that condition in Para No 5 of G.O.Ms.No.327, restricting regularization to a prospective date' I I f-:--1 \ - is discriminatory and contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State o.f Karaataka v. Umadevil, which mandates regularization of employees u'ho have rendered Iong years of service on a continuous basis lt is stated, Petitioner u,as ranked at Serial No. 1O in thc scniority lisl of NMR/part-time employees working on or beforc 25. I 1- 1993, as acknowledged by the Respondents, and no senior eligible candidate was overlooked cluring his regularization. Hc submits that Respondents' failure to grant retrospective rr:gularization has resulted in significant financial loss, including lower pay, denial of increments, and reduced pensionary bencfits He seeks a declaration that the condition in Para No.5 of G.O.Ms.No.327 is ultra vires and prays for regularization from 0 1 1 1 . 199 I or

23.O7 .1997 , with all consequential benefits.

3. The 5t Respondent - District Panchayat Officer, Khammam District filed a detailed counter affidavit denying Petitioner's claims and justifying thc prospective rr:gularization- It is stated, Petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk-cum- Bill Collector in Gram Panchayat Lachannagudem vide proceedings dated

01.1I.1981, on a consolidated pay of Rs. 150 / - pcr month He continued in the s:rme capacity and passed SSC examination in

1983. This ResPondent ' (2006) 4 sccr 1 l / acknowledges that Government issued G O (P) No' 112' Finance (Pc-lll) Department, daLed' 23'07 '1997' which provided for the who had comPleted 1O regularization of services o[ employees requisite educational years of service and Possessed qualihcattons Petitioner file d O A'No 8 652 of 2O01 before the APAT, seeking regularizatton under G.O.(P) No 112 The APAT' uide ordet dated 05'12 2O0 1' directed Respondents to examlne Petitioner's case along .*'r'ith other eligible candidates' Pursuant to the said direction and in accordance with G'O (P) No' 112' the G.O.Ms.No.327, dated 23'O9'2011' 1.t Respondent issued o[ services of i 2 part-time employees' permitting regularization including Petitioner' whose name was listed at Serial No 9' It is asserted that Petitioner's services q'ere regularized as a Bill Collector uide Proceedings dated 26'12'2011' and he was posted atGramPanchayatBhadrachalam,BhadrachalamMandal, KhammamDistrict,afterbeingrelievedfromGramPanchayat MarlaPadu, Vemsoor Mandal' It is also stated' in G O Ms No' 327 ' at para 5 has clearly mentioned that regularisation shall be done from prospective date subject to condition that the said vacancies are clear, regular and continued from dme to time till date and no serious eligible person is overlooked / omitted The said 6 condition is not assailed before this Court and hzrving accepted the same, it is not open to petitioner to seek present rclief.

4. The 6e respondent filed the coun ter r-rrging in similar lines as that of the 5ft respondent. It is Iurther stated that regularization of all eligible candidatcs, including Petitioner, was completed in 201 1, and Petttiont:r also availed the benefits of regular sewice until his retirement. Granting retrospective regularization would disrupI the senioritv of other employees and create adrninistrative chaos, as [he vacancies against which Petitioner was regularized u,ere idt:ntificd only in

2011. This rcspondenl is only a Drau.ing and Distrursing Officer who maintained service register of petitioner and he is not competent to deal with the counting of servicc for regularisation.

5. Heard Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Ms- Kanumuri Kalyani, learned counscl lor petitioner and Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the 6th respondent. Learned Scnior Counsel reli<:d on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in District Collector / Chairtnan u. M.L. Singh2.

6. This Court has carelully perused tht pleadings and documents filed by both the parties. The undisputed facts are '] (zoog) s scc +to - 7 Petitioner was appointed as a clerk-cum Bilr co ector on 01.11.1981 and continued in service without interruption. He acquired SSC qualification in 19g3 and completed 10 years of service by 01.11.1991, making him eligible for regularization under G.O.(P) No. i 12, dated 23.O7.1 997. primary contention of Petitioner is that prospective regularization from 23 .O9 .2O l1 is arbitrary, as he was eligible for regularization as early as in 1997. Respondents counter that regularization was governed by G.O.Ms.No.327, which explicitly mandated prospective effect, and Petitioner accepted the same without challenge at the time.

7. c.O.(p) No.1 12, dated 23.07.1997 was a policy decision by the Government of Telangana to regularize the services of employees who had completed 1O years ol service and possessed requisite educationar quarifications. petitioner fulfilled this criteria by 1992, having served over 15 years and holding an SSC c'ertihcate. The ApAT,s order dated OS.12.2OOI in O.A.No.B652 of 2OOl directed Respondents to consider petitioner's case along with other eligible senior candidates in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 212 F & p, dated 22.O4.1gg4 read with rhe judgment A.P. in Writ Appeal No. 374 of 20O1 and batch dated 27.O4.2OO1 and pass appropriate orders taking into consideration the rendered by I-Iigh Court . ..., 8 existence of sanctioned clear vacancies, yet no action u'as taken for a decade. This inordinate delay, attributable solely to the Respondents, cannot be used to prejudice Petitioner's rigl'rts The Hon'ble Supreme Court in lJmadevi's case (slrpra) held that employees who have rendered long years of r:ontinuous service on posts that are regular in nature arc entitled to regularization, provided they meet the eligibiliqr criteria' Petitioner's case squarely falls within this principle, as he worked continuously on a post that was later regulartzeci as a Rill Collector.

8. Respondents' apprehension that retrospective regularization would disrupt seniority or create administrative chaos is unfounded for Petitioner is not seeking rcgulariz:rtion against a non-existent post but against the post o[ Bill Collector, which he held since 1981. In view of the same, this Court, in the interests of justice, feels it appropriate to direct respondents lo regularise the services of petitioner from the date on which O'A' was ordered. g. ln the resuit, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing Respondents to regularise the services of petitioncr trom O5.12.20O1 on which date O.A.No.8652 of 2OOl was filed wilh all consequential benefits. No costs. 9 1o Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/.K.BHAVANI SWAMY STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, '1 . The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Ra.j and 2. The Principal Secretary, Service and Planning, State of Telangana Secretariat 3. The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj & Rural Employment, State of 4. The Collector (Panchayats), Khammam District at Khammam, State of ural Development Dept. Telangana, Hyderabad. Buildings, Hyderabad. Telangana. Telangana.

5. The District Panchayat Offiber, Khammam District at Khammam, State of District. State of Telangdna

6. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer MPP, Badhrachalam, Khammam 7. One CC to Ms. KANUMURI KALYANI ,Advocate IOPUC] B. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES, High Court for the State of Telangana, at 9. One CC to SRI K PRADEEP REDDY (SC FOR TS ZILLA PARISHADS) Hyderabad [OUT] To, IoPUCI

10.Two CD Copies BM GJP HIGH COURT DATED:2810512025 ORDER WP.No.34114 o12016 ( J l t) tE SiA 16: ?gJlJt M I I i '.,.,.- ,: ''-r' ;,' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS a(