IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION Nos.16925 and 16990 of 2007 WRIT PETITION No.16925 of 2007 Between: M. Maisamma, W/o. Papaiah, Ranga Reddy Courts, At L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Registrar, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. 4 The District Treasury Officer, Mojanjahi Market, 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 a Writ or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the service of the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the service of the Petitioner in the regular post in the last grade service with all consequential benefits and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. WRIT PETITION No.16990 of 2007 Between: 1 T. Yadamma, W/o. Venkataiah, Ranga Reddy Courts, At L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. 2 G. Anjamma, W/o. Sailu, Ranga Reddy Courts, At L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Registrar, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. 4 The District Treasury Officer, Mojanjahi Market, 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 a Writ or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the service of the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the service of the Petitioner in the regular post in the last grade service with all consequential benefits and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri G.L.NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: (SC FOR APHC) D.V.SITHARAM MURTHY GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION Nos.16925 and 16990 of 2007 COMMON ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.RAO) These two writ petitions are filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in the last grade service. This common order shall dispose of both the writ petitions. The petitioner in the first writ petition, being W.P.No.16925 of 2007, was appointed as part-time contingent employee (part-time Masalchi) on 19.04.1993 in the District Unit of Ranga Reddy District. She is statedly working regularly without any break. When the other co-employees were regularized as last grade employees, she requested the respondents for the same benefit, in vain. Therefore, she filed the writ petition. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in the other writ petition were appointed as part-time contingent employees (part-time Masalchies) on 08.05.1996 and 10.12.1998 respectively. They also stated that they were paid consolidated amounts and were continued for long. Even though the services of their co-employees were regularized, their services were not regularized. Learned District Judge, who is the third respondent in both the writ petitions, filed counter affidavits separately, but the contents are the same. While opposing the writ petitions it is stated that the petitioners are not entitled for regularization in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, or G.O.(P).No.112, dated 23.07.1997. It is also stated that the petitioners do not have continuous service of ten years as on the cut off date as per these two Government Orders. Therefore, they cannot be regularized. This Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the High Court, who brought to the notice of this Court an unreported judgment of this Court in B.Pydaiah v The Registrar (Administration), High Court of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.5030 of 2002, dated 26.04.2006). There is no dispute that the petitioners in both the writ petitions do not have ten years of continuous service as on 25.11.1993. Be it noted that the Government while issuing orders in G.O.(P).No.112 dated 23.07.1997, permitted regularization of part- time/full-time contingent employees like Masalchies in the Judiciary, provided, they worked for a minimum period of ten years and continued as such as on 25.11.1993. Petitioners in W.P.No.16990 of 2007 were appointed after G.O.(P).No.112 came into force, whereas the petitioner in the other writ petition was appointed on 19.04.1993, but she did not complete ten years as on 25.11.1993. Therefore, petitioners do not have any enforceable right to seek mandamus from this Court. It is, however, brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners are still working as part-time contingent employees. If that be so, if the Rules so permit and the services are required, the petitioners, subject to their willingness, may be engaged as contingent employees as and when required. These two writ petitions, with the above observations, are accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) __________________ (G.CHANDRAIAH, J) 20.08.2008 vs To 1 The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Finance Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Registrar, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. 4 The District Treasury Officer, Mojanjahi Market, Hyderabad. 5 2CCs to G.P for Finance and Planning, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 6 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}