IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 9533 of 1999 Between: K.V.Ramana, S/o. Basavapunnaiah, Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation, Tenali, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Deputy Executive Engineer, Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation, Tenili (Tenali District), Guntur District. 2 The District Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation, Guntur. 3 The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Housing Coporation, Urdugalli, Himymathnagar, Hyderabad. .....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 any appropriate order or direction or writ more particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus to set aside the proceedings No.A7/4780/95-2 dated 26-10-98 issued by the 3rd Respondent herein and to direct the respondents herein to regularise the petitioner services from 1-5-1993 and to pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. G. DHARMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR. K. MOHANA RAMI REDDY (SC FOR AP HOUSING CORP.) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner, a godown watchman in the service of the A.P. State Housing Corporation, Tenali, Guntur District (for brevity “the Corporation”), challenged the proceedings No.A7/4780/95-2 dated 26-10-1998 issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation, the third respondent herein, rejecting his representation for regularization of his services in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22-04-1994 and sought a consequential direction to regularize his services in the Corporation with effect from 01-05-1993 being the date on which he completed five years of service. 2. The facts of the case are not in dispute and are, in brief, as hereunder: The petitioner, belonging to B.C.(D) community, qualified in S.S.C. examination and got himself registered with the Employment Exchange in the year 1976. He was appointed as a godown watchman in the service of the Corporation on 01-05-1988 on N.M.R. basis. His initial salary of Rs.35/- per day was enhanced in due course to Rs.54-60 ps. per day. Seeking protection under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994, the petitioner sought regularization of his services in the Corporation stating that he had completed five years of service by 25-11-1993, being the cut off date stipulated in the said G.O. Aggrieved by the inaction of the Corporation in this regard, he approached this Court and filed W.P.No.18706 of 1995. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 29- 04-1998 directing the Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of his representation in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the Corporation rejected his representation by way of the proceedings No.A7/4780/95-2 dated 26-10-1998. The main grounds for rejection of the petitioner’s case as reflected in the said proceedings are that the petitioner had worked on N.M.R. basis in a post which was not sanctioned and that there was no clear vacancy enabling the Corporation to absorb and regularize his services. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the petitioner preferred the present Writ Petition. 3. The Corporation filed a counter affidavit reiterating the stand that was taken in the impugned proceedings and denying the entitlement of the petitioner to be regularized in service. It was further stated that if the petitioner was regularized in service, 314 other godown watchmen working in the Corporation would also have to be regularized as and when they sought the said relief. It was stated that such regularization would involve a huge financial commitment on the part of the Corporation and the Corporation could not undertake such an exercise without specific orders from the Government. 4. Heard Sri G. Dharma Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri K. Mohana Rami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation. 5. During the course of the hearing, the learned counsel brought it to the notice of this Court that a similar issue involving a godown workman working in the Corporation was the subject matter of Writ Appeal No.961 of 2001. A copy of the order dated 14-07-2008 passed by a learned Division Bench of this Court in the said Writ Appeal was produced. Therein, the learned Division Bench, duly recognizing the fact that the Government had rejected the request of the Corporation for sanction of posts by its proceedings dated 07-02-2006, accepted that it would not be possible for the Corporation to regularize the services of the watchman in that case. However, the Division Bench also took note of the fact that sufficient time had elapsed after the rejection proceedings in the year 2006 and that it may well be possible that vacancies would be now available amongst the sanctioned posts upon retirement/resignation of existing regular employees. Accordingly, the Division Bench observed that the ends of justice would be met if the Corporation was directed to consider the case of the watchman in that case for regularization of services in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22-04-1994, as and when regular vacancies arise in the existing sanctioned posts or when the Government accords sanction for additional posts. The Division Bench also took note of the fact that the watchman in that case had been continued in service for a long time and directed the Corporation to continue him in service till his services were confirmed/regularized. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a similar order would meet the interest of justice in the present case also. 7. In view of the said submission, the present Writ Petition is disposed of in accordance with the directions of the learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.961 of 2001. The respondent Corporation is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22-04-1994 as and when regular vacancies arise in the existing sanctioned posts or when the Government accords permission for additional posts. The respondent Corporation shall continue the petitioner in service till such time keeping in mind his long service in the Corporation. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 25-03-2009 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 9533 of 1999 (Disposed of) Date:25-03-2009 CBS