THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 13665 of 2010 Dated: 5-7-2010 Between: The Principal Secretary to Government of A.P., Agricultural and Cooperation Department, Hyderabad and others. …Petitioners and M.A.Massod and another …Respondents ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the petitioners and Sri Amarender for the 1st respondent-Caveator. The writ petition is directed against an order dated 15-3- 2010 in O.A.No. 5227 of 2006 instituted by the 1st respondent, aggrieved by the non-conversion of the post held by him as a regular last grade post and in not absorbing him as a Last Grade Servant as was done in the case of others, qua, the order in G.O.Ms.No. 9 dated 8- 1-1981 and Memo dated 29-9-1995. To the extent relevant and material for the purpose of this lis, the relevant facts are that the 1st respondent was appointed as a contingent watchman in the unit of the Director of Agriculture on 4-11- 1978 and was disengaged on 2-7-1985. He thus had a continuous spell of contingent service during 4-11-1978 to 1-7-1985. Aggrieved by his disengagement he filed O.A.No. 596 of 1989 before the Tribunal, which by an interim order directed the 1st respondent’s continuance in contingent status. Pursuant to the interim direction by the Tribunal, the 1st respondent was reinstated as a contingent watchman on 1-3-1990 and is continuing till date. O.A.No. 596 of 1989 was dismissed on 27-9-1993 and with the dismissal, the interim order granted in the said O.A. stood obliterated. By the order impugned herein, the Tribunal held that as the 1st respondent herein had put in more than five years of service as on the cut off date stipulated in G.O.Ms.No. 212 dated 22-4-1994 i.e., 25-11- 1993 and was working as a contingent watchman as on 25-11-1993 (the cut off date), though pursuant to the interim order in O.A.No. 596 of 1989, he satisfied the requirements stipulated in G.O.Ms.No. 212 and is entitled to regularisation. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the petitioners to regularise the 1st respondent’s service in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 212, within the time stipulated in the order of the Tribunal. To the extent relevant and material for the purpose of this writ petition, the order of the State Government in G.O.Ms.No. 212, Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department dated 22-4-1994 enjoin that “the services of such persons who worked continuously for a minimum period of 5 years and are continuing as on 25-11-1993 be regularized by the appointing authorities subject to fulfilment of the following conditions.” The other condition of entitlement for regularisation are not relevant for the purpose of this lis. On a true and fair construction of the relevant provisions of G.O.Ms.No.212, the conclusion is irresistible and compelling that for regularisation a person should have a minimum period of five years of continuous service and should be continuing in service as on 25-11-1993. Therefore, continuous period of five years of service should precede the cut off date 25-11-1993. The 1st respondent does not, on the factual matrix adverted to above, fulfil this condition in G.O.Ms.No. 212 and is therefore disentitled to the relief of a direction to the petitioners for the regularisation of his service. This is the error in the order of the Tribunal impugned herein. For the aforesaid reasons and on the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 15-3-2010 is set aside. There shall however be no order as to costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _________________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J 5th July, 2010. GRR