HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 11683 of 1998 DATED: 11.02.2010 Between: K. Subhadra And four others .. Petitioners And 1. The Registrar, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University 2. The Principal .. Respondents O R D E R:- The petitioners assert that they were engaged as Casual Labourers in the 2nd respondent-college, Rajendranagar ever since 1968-1969 onwards, but so far, their services have not been regularized in spite of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 212, dated 22.04.1994. While so, the petitioners state that the 2nd respondent regularized the services of one Ch.Chennamma, a similarly placed employee, in the post of Class-IV, vide proceedings dated 28.01.1998. According to the petitioners, even though Ch. Chennamma was engaged as Casual Labour on 05.08.1969, she is junior to the petitioners and her seniority stands at Sl.No. 59, and all the petitioners were engaged and working even before 05.08.1969. It is also stated that in pursuance of the order dated 16.10.1997 passed by this Court in W.P. No.4920 of 1997, the respondents regularized the services of Ch.Chennamma. Now, the grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of the fact that the services of Ch.Chennamma, who is junior to the petitioners, were regularized, the respondents have not considered their cases for regularization of services in the posts of Class IV in the 2nd respondent-college. Hence, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. The learned Standing Counsel for Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the services of petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 were regularized and they were put on regular time scale, and so far as the 5th respondent is concerned, the writ petition has become infructuous since he died during pendency of the writ petition. So far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, the respondents have put her on the Minimum of Time Scale of Class-IV employee. During the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel has placed before this Court the proceedings dated 08.10.2008 issued by the 1st respondent which indicates that in view of the directions given by the Government and in the light of the Resolution of the Board of Management, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, it has been decided to accord sanction for payment of Minimum of Time Scale of Class-IV (RPS 2005) + DA to the Casual Labourers working in the Agricultural University. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. It is interesting to note that the allegation of the petitioners that Ch.Chennamma is junior to the petitioners and she is placed at Sl.No.59 in the seniority list, however her services were regularized and she was put on time scale even prior to filing the writ petition, is not denied by the respondents. In view of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel that during pendency of the writ petition the services of petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 were regularized and they were put on regular time scale, and in view of the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent that the Government decided to accord sanction for payment of Minimum of Time Scale of Class-IV to the Casual Labourers working in Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, and having regard to the fact that the services of Ch.Chennamma, who is junior to the petitioners, were regularized, is not controverted by the respondents, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: i) The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the 2nd petitioner with effect from 08.10.2008. ii) The petitioners are directed to file a detailed representation to the respondents seeking seniority on par with Ch.Chennamma and also for regularization of their services and to put them on time scale on par with Ch.Chennamma at least on notional basis, so that the petitioners would get benefit while claiming pension. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V. RAMULU, J 11th February, 2010 bcj