THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.23984 OF 1999 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted by 13 individuals, who have been employed as unskilled workmen in the Arrack Bottling Unit at Etcherla in Srikakulam District belonging to the 2nd respondent – the Andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation Limited (henceforth referred to as ‘the Corporation’). The petitioners affirm that they have been employed initially on varying dates between 01-01-1987 and 16-08-1987 and they have ever-since been continuously working in the said bottling unit on daily wage basis. It is represented that they attend to work relating to packing of Indian Made Liquors and Beer. The Corporation has been revising their daily wages from time to time, but however, their services have not been regularized so far. It is pointed out that the State Government has taken a policy decision and announced the same through their G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department dated 22.04.1994, formulating a scheme for regularization of service of persons appointed on daily wage / nominal muster rolls or consolidated pay and continuing as such as on 25-11-1993 and those, who have completed five years of such continuous service, subject to their fulfilling the conditions prescribed in the said government order that they should possess the qualifications prescribed as per rules in force as on the date of regularization and that they should be within the upper age limit as on their initial date of engagement; and that the rule of reservation amongst various social segments / groups have to be followed; and their regularization shall be against clear vacancies of posts considered necessary to be continued as per the workload. Subsequently, an amendment was brought to this scheme through G.O.Ms.No. 231 Finance & Planning (Fin.Wing.PC.III) Department, dated 16-10-1998, that all those persons, who have completed a minimum period of five years of service on or before 25-11-1993 and who continue as on that date, shall be regularized in a substantive vacancy. The case of the petitioners is that except the 12th petitioner Sri S. Rama Rao, all of them have completed five years of continuous service by 25- 11-1993 and the bottling unit at Etcherla, Srikakulam District does require the manpower for attending to the substantive work, but nonetheless, their services have not been regularized for no valid or justifiable reasons. The Managing Director of the Corporation has filed a detailed counter affidavit in the matter. It is stated that the Corporation is a Government Company established in the year 1986 with 22 Arrack Bottling Units in the State for the purpose of packing and supplying pure, hygienic and unadulterated arrack in bottles and sachets to the Excise Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and that for the work relating to unskilled nature in various bottling units of the Corporation, casual workers were engaged from nearby villages and towns and after the prohibition of packing and selling of arrack has been imposed in the State with effect from 01-10- 1993, the Corporation has been entrusted with the wholesale trade of Indian Made Foreign Liquor with effect from 01-01-1994. But however, after imposition of total prohibition in the State with effect from 16-01-1995, the volume and turnover of the Corporation has been drastically reduced, thus, bringing down the quantum of work of the Corporation to negligible levels. It is further stated that 13 petitioners are engaged as unskilled workers and they are paid their wages as per the notifications issued under the Minimum Wages Act, from time to time; and that there was hardly any work left at the Indian Made Liquor Depot at Etcherla, Srikakulam District for the petitioners to be continued in service and thereafter, the State Legislature enacted Act No.2 of 1994 regulating appointments and prohibiting the irregular appointments in various offices and establishments under the control of the State Government, Local Authorities, Corporations, owned and controlled by the State Government, which was followed up by the scheme of regularization announced by the State Government contained in their G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22-04-1994, rendering such of those persons, who have completed five years of continuous service as on 25-11-1993, as eligible for the benefit of regularization and such regularization can only be affected against existing clear vacancies and that there are no clear vacancies available in the Corporation for the service of the petitioners to be regularized against them, as all due to the change of activity of the Corporation from packing of arrack to trading in Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Beer, the manpower requirement has suffered a drastic downslide; and that the State Government through their G.O.Rt.No.131, Revenue Department, dated 31-03-1998 appointed National Productivity Council for conducting a manpower study and for assessing the manpower requirements of the public sector corporations and that the National Productivity Council submitted, after a detailed study, their recommendations; and the Board of Directors of the Corporation have also made their recommendations, which were under consideration of the State Government. For want of orders from the State, it is asserted that the service of the petitioners could not be regularized so far. The issue relating to the scheme of regularization in terms of Act No.2 of 1994 coupled with the scheme announced by the State Government in their G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department dated 22-04-1994, referred to supra, was the subject matter of consideration by this Court and ultimately, the entire issue has been considered by the Supreme Court in A. MANJULA BHASHINI v. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P. WOMEN’S COOPERATIVE FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED[1], and the Supreme Court has concluded the decision on the subject in the following manner: “ 37. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the amendments made in the 1994 Act by Act Nos.3 of 1998 and 27 of 1998 do not have the effect of nullifying or overriding the judgment in District Collector v. M.L. Singh (supra). We further hold that the policy of regularisation contained in first proviso to Section 7 of Act No.27 of 1998 is one time measure intended to benefit only those daily wage employees, etc. who completed 5 years continuous service on or before 25.11.1993 and the employees who completed 5 years service after 25.11.1993 cannot claim regularisation. 39. We shall now consider whether the cut off date, i.e., 25.11.1993 specified in the first proviso to Section 7 of the 1994 Act (as amended by Act No. 27 of 1998) for determination of the eligibility of daily wage employees to be considered for regularisation is arbitrary, irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Undisputedly, the Ordinance issued in 1993 was the first exercise of legislative power by the State to prohibit employment on daily wages and to restrict appointments on temporary basis and, at the same time, streamline the recruitment in public services by adopting a procedure consistent with the doctrine of equality embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The 1994 Act was enforced with effect from 25.11.1993, i.e., the date on which the Ordinance was published in the official Gazette. Therefore, that date had direct bearing on the policy of regularisation circulated vide G.O. dated 22.4.1994, which was issued by the State Government in exercise of its executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution. When that policy was engrafted in the 1994 Act in the form of proviso to Section 7, the legislature could not have fixed any date other than 25.11.1993 for determining the eligibility of daily wage employees who fulfilled the requirement of 5 years continuous service. If any other date had been fixed for counting 5 years service of daily wage employees for the purpose of proviso to Section 7, the object sought to be achieved by enacting the 1994 Act would have been defeated, inasmuch as the regular recruitment could not have been made for appointment against the sanctioned posts and back door entrants would have occupied all the posts. Therefore, the cut off date i.e.25.11.1993 prescribed by the legislature for determining the eligibility of daily wage employees and others covered by Section 7 of the 1994 Act cannot be dubbed as arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational or discriminatory.” Therefore, all I need to do is to direct the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible with regard to the claim of the petitioners for their regularization in the service of the 2nd respondent Corporation, keeping in view the directives issued by the Supreme Court in the Judgment cited supra. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 23rd September 2011 [1] 2009 (5) ALD 58 (SC)