IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Appeal No. 758 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18/01/2001 in Writ Petition No.2473 of 1997 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1) The Housing Director, A.P. State Housing Corpn. Ltd., Urdu Galli, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad rep. By its Managing Director. 2) The District Manager, A.P. State Housing Corpn. Ltd., Adilabad. 3) The District Collector cum The ExecutiveDirector, A.P. State Housing Corpn. Ltd., Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. ... APPELLANTS AND 4) G.Manohar Rao, S/o. Surya Rao, Age: 39 years, WorkInspector in A.P. State Housing Corpn. Ltd., R/o. Manchiryal, Adilabad District. 5) Govt. of A.P. Rep. By its Secretary to Housing, Department of Housing (RHI), Secretariat, Hyderabad – 500 004. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR. P. UDAYA BHASKAR RAO Counsel for Respondent No.1: NONE APPEARED Counsel for Respondent No.2: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORAL JUDGMENT: (per Shri Anil R. Dave, Hon’ble the Chief Justice) 1. This appeal was notified for hearing on 10.8.2009. Nobody had appeared for the respondents and, therefore, in the interest of justice, hearing was adjourned to 12.8.2009. 2. Today, when the appeal was called for hearing, the learned advocates appearing for the respondents are absent. 3. Looking to the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that though the case has been listed for final hearing, learned advocates appearing for the respondents had not cared to appear in the appeal and, therefore, the case of the appellants was heard and the appeal is being disposed of by this judgment. 4. The appellants are the original respondents and they are aggrieved by the order dated 18.1.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2473 of 1997. 5. By virtue of the impugned order, it has been directed that service of respondent No.1 should be regularised as and when he completes five years' service even if there is no clear vacancy on that day. 6. Being aggrieved by the afore-stated direction with regard to regularisation of respondent No.1 – original petitioner, this appeal has been filed by the original respondents, who are employers of the original petitioner. 7. So as to help the daily wagers, the State of Andhra Pradesh had issued G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.4.1994. By virtue of the said G.O., it was directed that those daily wagers, who were performing their duties as daily wagers and had worked for five years as on 25.11.1993 should be regularised in service, provided there were clear vacancies at the time when the services of such daily wagers were to be regularised. 8. Respondent No.1 – original petitioner was a daily wager, who had joined service on 23.3.1990 and, therefore by 25.11.1993, the cut-off date stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.4.1994, he had not completed five years, yet he had filed the afore-stated petition praying for regularisation. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had not worked for five years on 25.11.1993 and yet the learned Single Judge has directed that as and when he completes five years as a daily wager, his service should be regularised even if there is no clear vacancy in the cadre on that day. 10. The learned advocate appearing for the appellants – employers has submitted that such a direction could not have been given because the said direction was not in consonance with the policy framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.11.1994. So as to substantiate his case, he has also relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Manjula Bhashini v. The Managing Director, A.P. Women's Cooperative Finance Corporation Ltd.[1] wherein the afore-stated G.O. has been referred to and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 42 of the said judgment that if a daily wager has not completed five years' service as on the date prescribed in the said G.O. viz., 25.11.1993, he cannot be regularised in service. 11. Looking to the afore-stated facts and the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.11.1994, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge ought not to have given a direction with regard to regularisation of service of the petitioner when he had not completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993. 12. For the afore-stated reasons, we quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ August 25, 2009 C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J svs ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {VSMI} [1] Civil Appeal No.3702 of 2006, decided on 6.7.2009 (B.N. Agrawal & G.S. Singhvi, JJ) (SC)