THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.12771 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.11.2008 in O.A.No.7769 of 2007 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The respondent herein filed the aforesaid O.A., for a direction to appoint her in any suitable post on compassionate grounds. It is stated that the respondent's husband viz., late G.V.Gopi was engaged as NMR on 1.12.1989 and worked as Pump Operator in the Chittoor Municipality. The said Gopi has earlier filed O.A.No.1056 of 1995 for regularisation of his services as on 7.3.1995 and the Tribunal while disposing of the said O.A., directed the petitioners herein to consider his case and pass orders for regularisation of his services as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.4.1994. and to continue him on the same terms and conditions till such time. Subsequently, the respondent's husband filed O.A.No.7920 of 2001 for fixation of pay and release of increments. During the prendency of the said O.A., he died on 6.7.2005 and consequent to the demise of her husband, the respondent has submitted a representation to the Commissioner, Chittoor Municipality on 8.8.2005 requesting for compassionate appointment in any suitable post in the Chittoor Municipality. She also filed O.A.No.8710 of 2005 seeking a direction to the respondent to consider her case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The Tribunal in its interim order dated 21.12.2005 has directed the petitioners to consider the representation of the respondent/applicant dated 8.8.2005 for appointment on compassionate grounds. The Government after considering the proposals rejected the request of the applicant on the ground that the husband of the applicant was not entitled for regularisation of services in the light of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.4.1994, read with G.O.Ms.No.118, Finance Department, dated 18.8.1999 vide Memo No.14719/G2/2007-1, dated 17.8.2007, and the same has been served on the respondent under acknowledgement on 20.1.2008. Subsequently, the respondent filed O.A.No.7769 of 2007 on the ground that the rejection order passed by the Government has not been communicated to her. The Tribunal allowed the said O.A.No.7769 of 2007 by order dated 10.11.2008 directing the petitioners herein to consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.118, dated 18.8.1999 by calculating the five years of service of the applicant's husband by 19.8.1998 instead of 25.11.1993 for regularisation of his services, if all other conditions prescribed by G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.4.1994 are fulfilled. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed by the Goverment. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services- I appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. The Government now filed W.P.M.P.No.20584 of 2009 seeking stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal dated 10.11.2008 in O.A.No.7769 of 2007 on the ground that this Court while considering the application in W.P.M.P.No.16532 of 2009 for suspension of the said order of the Tribunal, refused to stay the said order of the Tribunal on the ground that as per the proceedings dated 25.8.1999 of the Municipal Commissioner, Chittoor, the services of the deceased employee was shown as regularised with effect from 2.4.1996. The learned Government Pleader has produced a copy of the proceedings dated 2.4.1996 which shows only fixation of pay in the minimum of the time scale, but not regularising the services of the husband of the respondent. It is stated that the service of the husband of the respondent was not regularised vide proceedings dated 2.4.1996. The Tribunal mainly considered the case of the respondent basing on the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in A.P.Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, Hyderabad and others v. P.Venkatakumari[1] wherein it was held that the cut-off date for completion of 5 years shall be the date on which A.P.Act 27 of 1998 came into force and therefore the cut-off date mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.212 is not valid and it should be 19.8.1998 and as against the said judgment an S.L.P was also preferred to the Apex Court wherein no stay was granted by the Apex Court and therefore the Tribunal held that the cut-off date is to be calculated as on 19.8.1998, and as the applicant's husband completed 5 years of service and his services were directed to be regularised if he fulfilled all the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.212 and the applicant therein can be considered for compassionate appointment and accordingly directed the respondents therein. The learned Government Pleader placed reliance on an unreported judgment of the Apex Court in A.Manjula Bhashini & others v. The Managing Director, A.P.Women's Co-operative Finance Corporation Limited and another, in Civil Appeal No.3702 of 2006 and batch, dated 6.7.2009. We are of the opinion that as per the existing orders of the Government the husband of the respondent was not entitled for regularisation of his services and in fact his services were not regularised. For the sake of clarification of the entitlement of regularisation of the services of the husband of the respondent as held by the Apex Court, it is just and proper to extract paras 42 and 43 of the aforesaid judgment as hereunder: "The question which remains to be considered is whether the Division Bench was justified in holding that all daily wage employees who completed 5 years service on the date of enforcmeent of Act No.27 of 1998 i.e., 19.8.1998 would be entitled to be considered for regularisation of their services. A reading of paragraphs 54, 67, 68 and 72 of the impugned judgment shows that even though the Division Bench did not find the cut off date i.e., 25.11.1993 specified in first proviso to Section 7 for determining the eligibility of daily wage employees for regularisation to be arbitrary, irrational or discriminatory, yet it changed the said date from 25.11.1993 to 19.8.1998 solely on the premise that Act No.27 of 1998 was enforced with effect from that date. In our view, once the Division Bench negatived the challenge to the validity of Act Nos.3 of 1998 and 27 of 1990, there was no warrant for altering the date of eligibility specified in first proviso to Section 7 of the 1994 Act and thereby extend teh zone of eligibility of daily wage employees who could be considered for regularisation. As a corollary, we hold that the declaration made by the Division Bench that all persons who completed 5 years service as on the date of coming into force of Act No.27 of 1998 would be entitled to be considered for regularisation of their services is legally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. In the result, the appeals fild by the employees (C.A.Nos.3702, 3703, 3704, 3705, 3706, 3709, 3710, 3721, 3733, 3734, 3737, 3742, 3744, 3748, 3749 and 3751 of 2006) are dismissed and those filed by the State Government a n d agencies/instrumentalities of the State (C.A.Nos.3685, 3712, 3713, 3714, 3715, 3716, 3717, 3718, 3723, 3724, 3726, 3727, 3728, 3729, 3730, 3731, 3732, 3750, 3752, 3753, 3754 and 3755 of 2006) are allowed. The declaration made by the Division Bench that the ban on regularisation will be effective from 19.8.1998 i.e., the date on which Act 27 of 1998 came into force and that all persons who have completed 5 years of service as on that date would be entitled to be considered for regularisation of service is set aside. It is, however, made clear that the daily wage employees and others who are covered by Section 7 of the1994 Act (amended) and whose services have not been regularised so far, shall be entitled to be considered for regularisation and their services shall be regularised subject to fulfilment of the conditions enumerated in G.O. Dated 22.4.1994. With a view to obviate further litigation on this issue, we direct the Government of Andhra Pradesh, its officers and agencies/ instrumentalities of the State to complete the exercise for regularisation of the services of eligible employees within four months of the receipt/production of copy of this order, without being influenced by the fact that the application, writ petition or appeal filed by any such employees may have been dismissed by the Tribunal or High Court or this Court. Since some of the appeals decided by this order relate to part time employees, we direct that similar exercise be undertaken in their cases and completed within four months keeping in view the conditions enumerated in G.O.(P) No.112 dated 23.7.1997." In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.7769 of 2007, dated 10.11.2008, cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. However, it is open for the respondent to make a representation, if she so chooses, for consideration of her case under any other scheme. If any such representation is made, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. __________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 5.8.2009 kpr [1] 2001 (4) ALD 368 (DB)