IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.2465 of 2002 Between: P.Peter Samuel Raju S/o.Nirikshana Rao R/o.7-52, High School Raod, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director, A.P.State Housing Corporation Ltd., Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. 2 The District Director, A.P.State Housing Corporation Ltd., Udyog Bhavan, Siripuram, Vishakhapatnam. 3 The Secretary to the Govt., Dept. of Housing & Rehabilitation, A.P.State Housing Corporation Ltd., Secretariat, Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularising the services of the petitioner on par with his junior vide its G.O.Ms.No.114, Housing (RH.1) Dept.dt.6.12.97 as is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory besides being violative of Arts.14,16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the petitioners services on par with his juniors with back wages and with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.J.RAMACHANDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.V.CH.NAIDU The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No.2465 of 2002 ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner on par with his juniors vide G.O.Ms.No.114, Housing (RH.1) Department, dated 6-12-1997 as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits. It appears, petitioner was initially appointed as a Technical Work Inspector with effect from 13-8-1986 after subjecting him to due selection process. He was appointed on the basis of merit, in the open category by virtue of technical qualification of LCE. His seniority was at serial No.90 in the first seniority list prepared by the respondent- Corporation. Subsequently, the Technical Work Inspectors formed a registered trade union vide Regn.No.B-1630 in order to protect the legitimate grievances, including regularization, promotion and improvement of service conditions, of Technical Work Inspectors. The respondents could not digest this, as a result of which, more than 100 Technical Work Inspectors have been retrenched by one stroke of pen on 9-5-1989. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner and others filed Writ Petition No.7549 of 1989 and batch, which were disposed of by this Court on 12-7-1991 directing the petitioner herein and others to move the Industrial Tribunal for necessary relief under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (for short ‘the Act’) without prejudice to their rights. It was made clear that the petitioners would be entitled for re-employment in service in accordance with seniority as provided under Section 25-H of the Act, if on any future occasion, the 2nd respondent desires to employ additional Work Inspectors. In pursuance of the above order, he was reinstated into service in the month of October,1992. However, thereafter, the services of the petitioner were terminated abruptly on 10-11-1993. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner again raised a dispute under Section 2-A of the Act before the Labour Court in I.D.No.53 of 1998. The said I.D. was disposed of directing the management to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and other attendant benefits. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 7-2-2001. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that though he was out of employment from 10-11-1993 to 7-2-2001, since the Labour Court granted continuity of service, it must be deemed that he was in continuous service and, therefore, he is entitled for regularization of his services on par with others. It is his case that he filed a Writ Petition being W.P.No.7551 of 1989 before this Court and in view of the orders passed therein, he was reinstated into service in October,1992. Thereafter, he was removed and again reinstated into service in the year 2001 and the entire service from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 13-8-1986 must be treated as a continuous service; therefore, he is also entitled for regularization on par with others. In this regard, learned counsel also relied upon G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 6-12-1997, wherein the persons, who were similarly placed with that of the petitioner and those who were in service, but there was intermittent gap in service in view of the earlier retrenchment, they were directed to be treated as in continuous employment and their services were also directed to be regularized from the date of their initial appointment. According to the petitioner, he is also entitled for the same benefit and his case was not considered, since he was illegally terminated on 10- 11-1993 and the same was the subject matter of I.D.No.53 of 1998, wherein the respondent-management was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service, but without any back wages. I am afraid, I am not able to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner insofar as treating the services of the petitioner from 13-8-1986 till date as continuous service, since he was retrenched from service on 9-5-1989. May be that was the subject matter of W.P.No.7551 of 1989, wherein this Court directed the management to reinstate and the petitioner was, in fact, reinstated in the month of October,1992 in pursuance of the above Order. But, there was a gap in the service from 9-5-1989 to October,1992. According to the petitioner, in similar cases, the Government after considering the matter in detail issued G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 6-12-1997 and directed the management to regularize the services of those persons. It appears, petitioner’s case may be covered by the said G.O., but he was not in service as on the date of issuance of the same. Therefore, the Management has not considered his case for regularization. Under the above circumstances, the respondents are directed to examine the service particulars of the petitioner and if the petitioner satisfies the criteria as laid down in G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 6-12-1997, they shall consider treating the entire service of the petitioner from 13-8- 1986 till date as continuous and extend the same benefits as were extended to others under the said G.O. as to regularization etc., and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 29-4-2008 prk