1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. I CH.Sreemannarayana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for the records retelling to end connected with the orders dated.18-08-2011passed in OA.No.11036 of 2008 on the file of the of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and to quash the same as.erroneous and contrary to law. l.A. NO: 1OF 20 P 4285 20't2 ,, Petition under Ii:ction '1 51 CPC praying that in the circurnsl.ances stated in the affidavit filed 1r-r r;upport of the petition, the High court may l.rt: pleased to suspend the operatio I of orders dated.18.08.2011 in oA.No.',1033 of 2008 on the file of the -lon't l: Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad, pending disposa of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Detiti)ners: GP FOR SERVICES-I Counsel for the Resp:ndent No.1 to 3: SRI S.JAGADISH The Court made the f rllowing: ORDER i l I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Writ Petition No.33708 of 2OL2 ORDER: per the Hon,bre Si.rt)stice Abhinand Kumar Shauiti) _ Aggrieved by the orcler dated 1g.0g.2011, passed in O.A.No. 11036 of 2008 by the Andhra pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ,the Tribunal), the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. Heard learned Government pleader lbr Services_I appearing for the petitioners arld Sri S. Jagadish, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

3. Learned Government pleader appearing for the petitioners had contended that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are working as Section Cierks/ Section Assistants in Nalgonda Municipality and they were contending that their services should be regularised in terms of G.O.Ms.N o.212, dated 22.O4.1994. Learned Government pleader had further contended that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not entitred for regularisation of services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.2l2, dated 22.04.1994, as admittedly, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have not ./ I ) ir EI D,J '..1i,. rrr 3 1708 11012 completed fiv(l (5) years of services as ol 24 11.19!r'3' ''vhich lre-requisite condition und'er G'O Ms l'tro 212 is one of the Therefore th: question of considering t he oa s(ls of respondellt llrs l to 3 for regularisation ol- their serYice would not an;e . When the cases of respondent Nrrsr' I to 3 were not corl s'idered for reguiarisation of therr sr:t rrir:t:' theY have approaclred the Tribunal by filing O A'No 1lO36 of 2008 anrl thr Tribunal vvas pleased to dispose ol the OA' uide ord<:r. ctlr:ed 18.o8.2011 by directing the prltitilllers to regularise t 't: services of respondent Nos l to 3 irr r-6:1ms of G'o.Ms.]..jo.2 2, dated 22,o4.|gg4, without apprer:iating any of the cor.r'r) -Itlons raised by the petitioners Th:refore' approprral e o -ders be passed in the Writ Pet'iticn b v setting asideth:o.-ct'r,dated18.oB.2011passedino.A'|Io.11036of 2008 by tlr: Irrbunal ar-rd allow the Writ Petition

4. Ott th' : other har-rd, learned counsel fot re s londent aiready Nos. 1 o ll had contended that the lssue \\ral ' considerec b1' the Honourable Supreme Court in District M.L, lsirtrTh dttd Collector/Ch'airmdn and others u others , rr't Lr:rein the Honourable Supreme' Cor.Lrt has held ' (zooq) s ;c't. ts I \ $ ( t 3 AKS,J & ETD,J wp, 3370ft 2012 that the persons who have completed five (5) years of service are entitled for regularisation of their services. Therefore, lotlowing the aforesaid orders passed by the Honourable Supreme Court, the Tribunal has rightly disposed of the subject O.A. by directing the petitioners to regularise the services of respondent Nos.l to 3 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, if not already regularised on completion of five (5) years of service as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated

22.04.1994. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ ) Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. This Court, having considered the submissions made by both the parties, is of the view that the Tribunal was justified in disposing of the subject O.A in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 by directing the petitioners to regularise the services of respondent Nos.1 to 3 on completion of five years of service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, d,ated 22.04.1994, as admittedly, the issue was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in M.L. Singh,s case (supra). Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal. , 4 \I'S,. IT L-TD,J ltl I lioE 20l2

6. With ilr( above observations, the Writ Pr:tir ion is dismissecl lic crder as to costs

7. As a serltLr:l, miscellaneous applications peniliitg i - any, sha1l stan<l clor;,:cl SD/- P.Ch. NAGI\EIHUSHAMBA ASSISTAN'T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// .\ -7 SECTION OFFICER One CC to S=lt ll.JAGADlSH, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to Gt'} FOR SERVICES-|, High Court for the State of Trlangana at Hyderabe'd [Ol.J'f] Two CD ()opie ; To, 1 2 J. BSR GJP I I lta.tat I I I "=-,",& at*alisi: :: HIGH COURI' DATED: 051A212025 .,-..-.::' * rr 5l^,, -\ e ( \ t \) .,? !) 0 3 JUI i,fiE t SI'ATC *fr t , t ,) L ORDER WP.No.3370E of 2012 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS z/t l_