IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 19835 of 1998 Between: 1 R.Y. Naidu, s/o. Butchan Naidu, Tech. Asst. Gr. III. 2 S. Vijay Kumar S/o. Sreenivasa Rao, 3 Y. Sreenivasa Rao, s/o. Venkateswara Rao, 4 J.S. Naidu, s/o. Yerraiah, 5 T.R. Venugopal s/o. Ramaiah, 6 Rao Bahadur, s/o. Sher Bahadur, .... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Govt of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Vice- Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Paigah Palace, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in not regularising the services of the petitioners as arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to law and consequently direct the Respondents to regularise the services of the Petitioners from the dates the petitioners have completed five years of service, with all other consequential benefits, including seniority and attendant monetary benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.RAM REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking regularization of the petitioners in the service of the second respondent-Hyderabad Urban Development Authority. 2 . The facts as to the services rendered by the petitioners are not in dispute. However, during the pendency of the writ petition the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.496, dated 03-11-2003 approving the staffing pattern in the HUDA and permission was granted by the first respondent to fill up those vacancies on 20-02- 2004. Therefore, the petitioners have filed W.P.M.P.No.6797 of 2005 and the same was disposed of with the following direction on 18-03-2005: “Heard both sides. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, as mentioned in the affidavit, and also in view of the G.O.Ms.No.496, dated 03-11-2003, and the orders passed by the first respondent on 20-02-2004, there cannot be any impediment in considering the petitioners’ case. Accordingly there shall be interim direction as prayed for.” 3 . The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the interim order made in W.P.M.P.No.6797 of 2005 may be made as final orders in the writ petition. 4. I am of the considered opinion that the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners is reasonable. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of their services in the respective cadre as per the terms and conditions of G.O.Ms.No.496, dated 03- 11-2003 and also in view of the permission accorded by the first respondent on 20- 02-2004 and pass appropriate orders as per law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J. Dated 16-06-2005. SKMR ..... REGISTRAR To 1 Principal Secretary, the Govt of A.P., Municipal Administration & Urban Development Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Vice- Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Paigah Palace, Secunderabad. 2 CD copies