HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.2024 of 2003 Date: October 25, 2010 Between: 1. Y. Ramakrishna Reddy & 5 others. … Petitioners and 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Housing Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad & 2 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.2024 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioners, Work Inspectors, in the service of the A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., filed the present writ petition assailing its action in not regularizing their services and sought a consequential direction to do so from the date of their initial appointment with service and monetary benefits as per rules. 2. It is stated by both counsel appearing for the parties that under G.O.Rt.No.138, Housing (U&IAY) Department, dated 08.5.2006 the Government of Andhra Pradesh directed regularization of the services of NMR Work Inspectors (Technical and Non-Technical) in the Corporation with effect from the date of the said order. The petitioners herein are covered by the afore-stated G.O. 3. Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, states that aggrieved by the denial of retrospective regularization with effect from their date of initial appointment, petitioners 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 have already approached this Court by way of a separate writ petition, W.P. No.12700 of 2008. 4. In the light of the afore-stated developments, it is clear that the main issue in the present writ petition with regard to regularization of the petitioners’ services has already been addressed under G.O.Rt.No.138 dated 08.5.2006. That being so, the grievance of the petitioners with regard to denial of retrospective regularization would necessarily have to be canvassed by way of a separate proceeding. In fact, petitioners 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 have already been taken steps in this regard by filing W.P. No.12700 of 2008. 5. That being so, the present writ petition is dismissed as infructuous leaving it open to petitioner No.3 also to take necessary steps along with the other petitioners for agitating his grievance, if any, with regard to denial of retrospective regularization. This order would not preclude the petitioners from raising all the grounds that are raised herein with regard to their claim for retrospective regularization in the subsequent writ petitions filed by them. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: October 25, 2010. BSB