IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 21733 of 1999 Between: P.Venkateswara Rao S/o.Appaiah O/o.Mandal Revenue Officer,Gangavaram E.G.Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Registrer, A.P.Admn Tribunal Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector & Magistrate Kakinada E.G.Dist. 3 The Sub-Collector Rampachodavaram E.G.Dist. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer Gangavaram E.G.Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 especially one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to O.A.No.5797/95 and its orders dated 2-7-1999 and set aside the same and further declare that the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in No.1402/91 dated 7-10-1995 and the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in C.D.Dis.No.A7/3914/91 dated 25-5-1994 as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; and further declare that the petitioner herein is entitled to be contained as regular Last Grade Servant, and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.VIJAYA BHASKAR MOOLA The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.21733 of 1999 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 02-07- 1999 passed in O.A.No.5797 of 1995 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and further seeking the direction to official respondents to continue the petitioner in Last Grade service. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as contingent employee on 01-2-1984 and the third respondent confirmed him in the services after completion of 7 years of continuous service as full time contingent employee. The petitioner was posted as Attender vide proceedings dated 15-2-1994 issued by the third respondent. The petitioner stated that after regularisation, his pay was fixed in the revised scales of 1986 and 1993 and he had availed LTC and encashment of leave. While so, the third respondent cancelled the regularisation of the services of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 07-10-1995 pursuant to the proceedings of 2nd respondent dated 25-5-1994. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed O.A., which was disposed of directing the petitioner to file a representation before the Commissioner/Government to consider his case for regularisation either under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22-4-1994 or G.O. (P) No.112 dated 23-7-1997 and to continue the petitioner in the Last Grade Services as he had put in more than 10 years of service. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the cancellation order had been issued without notice and as such, the Tribunal ought to have allowed O.A. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submits that the petitioner was appointed contrary to the Rules and there are other contingent employees senior to the petitioner who have not been regularised. 5. We have considered the contentions advanced by both the counsel. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner was appointed as full time Contingent employee by the Special Deputy Collector (TW), Rampachodavaram, and also given time scale and further, the services of the petitioner have been converted to the Last Grade service. Apart from this, the petitioner had put in more than ten years of service and in spite of the conversion to the Last Grade, the cancellation order was passed that too without giving any notice or opportunity. Under those circumstances, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner in the Last Grade service and regularise him in accordance with relevant GOs and as per law. The petitioner’s services during the period between 25-5-1994 and 19-1-2000 shall be treated as regular service in the cadre of Last Grade service. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not right in rejecting the case of the petitioner and dismissing the O.A. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02-07-1999 passed in O.A.No.5797 of 1995 is set aside and the O.A. shall stand ordered accordingly. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 18-06-2008 bsc ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{CHP}