THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.22139 of 2006 Date: 14.02.2011 Between: M. Ramachandra Rao …Petitioner And The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.22139 of 2006 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment i.e., 04.12.1985 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to regularize his services with effect from 04.12.1985 in category-V with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner joined as Field Assistant in the erstwhile Primary Agricultural Development Bank, Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam on 04.12.1985. However, since his services were dispensed with on 01.04.1987, the petitioner filed W.P.No.7519 of 1987 and by virtue of the interim order dated 15.06.1987 passed therein, the petitioner was continued in service. Ultimately, the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 20.01.1994 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services as Supervisor in the light of G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 13.02.1986 and G.O.Ms.No.193, dated 14.03.1990 and the relevant rules, provided they are applicable to the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders. It is further directed that pending consideration of the petitioner’s case by the respondents, he would be entitled to continue in service. Thus, the petitioner was continued in service. However, in the meanwhile, the erstwhile Primary Agricultural Development Bank merged with the 2nd respondent-District Cooperative Central Bank, Visakhapatnam. After merger, the 2nd respondent-Bank approved the services of the petitioner in the erstwhile Primary Agricultural Development Bank with effect from 08.06.1988 and further regularized the services of the petitioner with effect from 01.03.1987. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the Government of Andhra Pradesh have issued G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, as per which the petitioner had completed more than five years of service, therefore, he is entitled for regularization of his services as on the date prescribed in the said G.O. i.e., 25.11.1993 and since there were regular sanctioned vacancies available, he would have been regularized long back. 3. Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-bank contends that the question of regularising the services of the petitioner with retrospective effect does not arise. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA v. DHARAM PAL AND OTHERS[1] and stated that the policy decision of regularization cannot be linkered with by the Courts. He also contends that apart from the above, there is a delay of seven years in approaching this Court by filing the present writ petition and on this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, perused the impugned order and the other material available on record. 5. It appears that even after merger of the erstwhile Primary Agricultural Development Bank with the 2nd respondent-District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam, the appointment of the petitioner in the erstwhile Primary Agricultural Development Bank was again reiterated by the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam. Therefore, even assuming that the petitioner was temporarily appointed, but in view of the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 in the meanwhile, the case of the petitioner has to be considered. 6. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that the services of similarly situated persons were regularized under various orders issued by the Government from time to time, including G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, and thus they got the benefit of regularization of their services from an anterior date to the petitioner. 7. Under those circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the respondents are directed to verify as to the availability of any vacancy in the cadre of Supervisor as on 25.11.1993 and whether the services of the petitioner could be regularized under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. If the respondents consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services from a date anterior to that of 01.03.1987, they may do so by extending the benefits notionally. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 14.02.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.22139 of 2006 14.02.2011 (Msr) [1] (2009) 4 SCC 170