IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 563 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17.1.2001 in WP NO : 5202 OF 1995 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The District Collector & Chairman, District Social Welfare Residential School Society, Cuddapah District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Smt V.Venkata Lakshmamma, 2 The Secretary, A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutional Institutions Society, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector and Chairman, District Social Welfare Residential Schools Society, Cuddapah District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING Counsel for the Respondents No.: MR.GOPALA RAO GANDRAKOTA The Court made the following : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 563 of 2002 JUDGMENT: ( Per the Honourable Smt Justice T. Meena Kumari) Aggrieved by the Order, in W.P.No.5202 of 1995 dated 17.1.2001, the 3rd respondent-appellant has preferred this appeal. The 1st respondent herein is the writ petitioner. She ﬁled the above writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents therein to retain and continue her in the post in which she was then holding and also to regularise her services from the date on which she was appointed, with all consequential benefits. The learned Single Judge having observed that except, not putting 5 years of service as on 25.11.1993, all other conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.4.1994 for regularization of service of the temporary employees are fulﬁlled by the petitioner and that this issue is answered by the Apex Court in District Collector/Chairman & Others Vs. M.L. Singh & Others[1], allowed the writ petition along with another WP, issuing a direction as follows: “A direction is given to the respondents therein to regularize the services of the petitioners as and when they complete 5 years of service as per the scheme framed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.4.1994, without insisting for existence of a clear vacancy as stipulated in clause-V of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.4.1994, but subject to fulﬁlment of other conditions stipulated therein and the rule of reservation to be followed while ﬁxing the inter seniority among them. If required number of candidates from reserved categories are not available to be ﬁtted in the roaster, those posts may be carried forward and the backlog posts have to be ﬁlled in the next recruitment. On regularising their services, the petitioners are entitled to count their service for the purpose of seniority and other attendant beneﬁts like terminal and pensionary beneﬁts, which are being enjoyed by the regular employees of the society and as far as monetary beneﬁt is concerned, since the petitioners are being paid the time scale of pay attached to the posts to which they are holding, no direction is given to that extent, except observing that the petitioners are entitled for pay revision that has taken place from time to time. Having aggrieved by the same, the 3rd respondent in the writ petition filed the present appeal. Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and perused the material available on record and the order impugned herein. The learned Government Pleader contended that the intention of the legislation in issuing the G.O.Ms.No.212 is to regularize the service of the persons, who had already completed 5 years of continuous service before the cut of date viz., 25.11.1993. But the intention of the legislation was totally misconstrued by the Courts. The order passed by the learned single Judge is based on the principles laid down by the Apex Court, which has laid down that the cases of the similar candidates shall be considered by the authorities as and when they complete ﬁve years of service to come under the purview of G.O.Ms.No:212. Therefore, the question of cut oﬀ date does not arise in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court and apart from that, the interpretation of G.O.Ms.No:212 in the course of the order of the learned single Judge, cannot be said to be misconstrued. Hence, this writ appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ Justice T.Meenakumari _________________________ Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar Dated: 12.8.2008 Nn/gurc. HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 563 of 2002 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Honourable Smt Justice T. Meena Kumari) 12th August, 2008 [1] 1998(2) ALT 5 (SC)