IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18126 of 2008 Between: 1 P. Subramanyam Reddy S/o. P. Venkata Reddy Garden Office, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirumala, Chittoor District. 2 K. Lokanatham S/o. K. Krishnaiah Garden Office, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirumala, Chittoor District. 3 D. Subramanyam Reddy S/o. D. Subbarami Reddy Garden Office, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirumala, Chittoor District. 4 D. Siddaiah S/o. D. Yallappa Garden Office, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirumala, Chittoor District. 5 M. Dhanamjaya S/o. M. Ramachandraiah Garden Office, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirumala, Chittoor District. 6 N. Sankar Reddy S/o. N. Venkata Reddy Garden Office, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirumala, Chittoor District. 7 P. Bathi Reddy S/o. P. Dharma Reddy Garden Office, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirumala, Chittoor District. 8 G. Kesavulu S/o. G. Veeraswami Garden Office, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirumala, Chittoor District. 9 Y.G. Mohan Reddy S/o. Y. Venkata Reddy Garden Office, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirumala, Chittoor District. 10 D. Sadasiva Chetty S/o. D. Chinnabba Garden Office, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirumala, Chittoor District. 11 P. Laxma Reddy S/o. P. Rami Reddy Garden Office, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirumala, Chittoor District. 12 V. Bathaiah S/o. V. Ankaiah Garden Office, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirumala, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, rep. by its Executive Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling the connected records including the impugned proceedings Roc.No.B-7/1950/2008, dt. 26.05.2008 of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and in clear discrimination and further declare that the petitioners are entitled for regularization w.e.f. 06.05.1991 as stated in G.O.Ms.No.1282; dt. 09.10.2007 without reference to the break in service, as their juniors who were appointed in the month of November / December, 1987 as Gardners were got regularized w.e.f. 06.05.1991 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.SEENA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioners were initially engaged as Gardeners by Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam in the years 1985, 1986 and 1987. They have been discontinued in the months of November and December, 1987, but were reappointed in the month of August, 1998. 62 persons including the petitioners herein were regularized by the Government, through its orders in G.O.Ms.No.708 Revenue (Endowments-III) Department, dated 06.11.2001, with prospective eﬀect. Subsequently, on a representation made by various batches of persons, the Government issued G.O.Ms.Nos.1210 and 1282 Revenue (Endowments- III) Department, dated 04.07.2003 and 09.10.2007 respectively, extending the beneﬁt of regularization with retrospective eﬀect. The petitioners made representations, dated 24.01.2008 and 28.04.2008, to the Devasthanam for extension of the beneﬁt under G.O.Ms.No.1282, dated 09.10.2007. Through its proceedings, dated 26.05.2008, the Devasthanam rejected the representations of the petitioners. Thereupon, they approached the Government, the ﬁrst respondent, with a representation, dated 25.06.2008. Their grievance is that no action has been taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments, and the learned Standing Counsel for the Devasthanam. The services of the petitioners have already been regularized in terms of G.O.Ms.No.708, dated 06.11.2001, with prospective effect. On the representations made and on the recommendation of the second respondent, the ﬁrst respondent issued revised orders in respect of some of the employees covered by G.O.Ms.No.708, dated 01.11.2001, granting the relief of retrospective regularization. The case of the petitioners was turned down by the second respondent on certain grounds. The petitioners had already availed the remedy of approaching the first respondent. Inasmuch as the matter has been pending for quite some time in one form or the other and several persons who have been regularized along with the petitioners were extended the beneﬁt of retrospective regularization, the matter needs to be disposed of without undue delay. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the ﬁrst respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation, dated 25.06.2008, submitted by the petitioners, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:21.08.2008 kdl