IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.1911 of 2002 Between: 1 K.Mohan Rao S/o K.V.Krishan Murthy Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2 P.Venugopal Reddy S/o Venkat Reddy Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3 Kola Muniramaih S/o K.Chinnabba Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 4 P.Thangavelu S/o P.Ella Mandhadi Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 5 V.Kalyani S/o K.G. Venkatachala Iyyengar Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 6 G.Muni Reddy S/o G.Muthyala Reddy Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 7 N.Ramdhas S/o V.Venkata Krishnaiah Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 8 B.Ramachandraiah S/o Jogi Ramaiah Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 9 B.Durga Rao S/o Munaswamy Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 10 K.Surendra S/o K.Kandhaswamy Vadiyar Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 11 R.Muthu S/o R.Ramaswamy Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 12 P.Raja Rao S/o P/Seshagiri Rao Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 13 P.Venkatachalam S/o.P.Ramaiah Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 14 G.Chenchu Krishna Reddy S/o G.Pulla Reddy Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 15 M.Nandakumar Reddy S/o M.Chenga Reddy Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 16 P.Venkat Reddy S/o P.Rami Reddy Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 17 G.Trivikrama Reddy S/o Chinnamuthyala Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 18 G.Krishnaiah S/o Ramaiah Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 19 P.Munaswmay S/o P.Dormaiah Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 20 P.Bhaskara Reddy S/o P.Muni Reddy Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 21 N.Sreeramulu S/o Changaiah Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 22 K.Ramaswamy Reddy S/o K.Venkata Reddy Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 23 E.Seenaiah S/o E.Changamandadi Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 24 B.Bhaskar S/o B.Ramaiah Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 25 Kondichetty Muniramaiah S/o K.Muthyalaiah Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 26 B.Sankaraiah S/o B.Chengaiah Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 27 A.Siddaiah S/o A.Siddaiah Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 28 N.Radhakrishnaiah S/o N.Guravaiah Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 29 B.Srinivasulu Reddy S/o B.Venkata Reddy Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 30 K.Purshotham S/o Reddaiah Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 31 K.Chenga Reddy S/o Nagi Reddy Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 32 K.Ekambaram S/o K.Munirathnam Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 33 P.Devarajulu Reddy S/o P.Krishna Reddy Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 34 N.Lokanadha Reddy S/o N.Reddeppa Reddy Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 35 G.Munuswamy S/o Chinnaiah Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 36 A.Subramanyam S/o Venkataramaiah Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 37 M.Rama Murthy Reddy S/o Yerrama Reddy Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, rep. by its Executive Officer, Tirumala, Chittoor District. 2 State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments III) Deptt, Secretariat, 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 may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction in the Nature of Mandamus of otherwise declaring the action of the respondents in not regularising the service of the petitioners w.e.f. 17.12.1981 as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, violative Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and issue consequential directions the respondents to forthwith regularise the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 17.12.1981 with all consequential benefits basing on the proposal sent by the 1st respondent by proceedings Roc.No.B5/913/94 dt: 12.11.1994, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.S.RAJASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR. A.K.JAYA PRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.2: G.P. FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.1911 OF 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners with effect from 17.12.1981 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and consequently to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from 17.12.1981 with all consequential benefits, basing on the proposal sent by the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 12.11.1994. It appears, the petitioners were appointed as Gardeners in the 1st respondent Devasthanam, during the years 1975 to 1978, on N.M.R. basis. While so, to protect the interest of the personnel working on N.M.R. basis from 01.01.1975, the 1st respondent Devasthanam requested the Government for regularization of their services and the Government has considered the same, treating it as a special case, and issued G.O.Ms.No.1458 Revenue (Endowments III) Department dated 19.09.1981, according sanction to regularize the services of 349 persons recruited on N.M.R. basis from 01.01.1975 to 31.12.1978 in the respondent Devasthanam. According to the petitioners, in pursuance of the said G.O., the respondent Devasthanam has regularized the services of the persons working in Electricity and Water Works Departments, on N.M.R. basis, with effect from 17.12.1981, but ignored the petitioners-Gardeners, who are also entitled for the same benefit in terms of the aforesaid G.O. However, on the representation made by the petitioners, their services were regularized with effect from 14.03.1984. The petitioners contend that since the services of the similarly situated persons working in Electricity and Water Works Departments were regularized with effect from 17.12.1981, their services also have to be regularized with effect from that date, but the respondent Devasthanam has arbitrarily regularized their services with effect from 14.03.1984. In fact, in this regard, the petitioners made a representation to the respondent Devasthanam on 06.01.1994, ventilating their grievance, and the respondent Devasthanam, by its letter dated 12.11.1994, has recommended the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services with effect from 1981, on par with the other similarly situated persons, and requested the Government to issue necessary orders. The said proposal is still pending with the 2nd respondent. That apart, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Association of Gardeners working in the respondent Devasthanam has also submitted a representation to the Government on 13.08.2004 and the same is also pending for consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that Writ Petition No. 29547 of 1997 filed under similar circumstances was disposed of by this Court, on 11.09.1998, directing the Government to dispose of the proposal sent by the Devasthanam within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Learned counsel further stated that in pursuance of the said directions, the matter has been considered and ultimately the services of the petitioner in the said writ petition were regularized with retrospective effect i.e. with effect from 01.08.1991. It is also further stated in view of the interim orders passed by this Court in other similar writ petitions, directing the respondents therein to consider and dispose of the representations filed by the petitioners therein, the Devasthanam has sent proposals for regularization of the services of the petitioners therein with effect from 19.09.1981 and the said proposals are under active consideration of the Government. In view of the above and in view of the fact that the cause of the petitioners seems to be genuine as they are also covered by G.O.Ms.No.1458 dated 19.09.1981, prima facie, I am of the opinion that they are entitled for regularization with effect from 17.12.1981, on par with the other similarly situated persons. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the proposal sent by the 1st respondent Devasthanam on 12.11.1994 as well as the representation, dated 13.08.2004, submitted by the Association of Gardeners working in the 1st respondent Devasthanam, and pass appropriate orders as per law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and communicate the same to the petitioners. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 27th March, 2008. IBL To 1 The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirumala, Chittoor District. 2 The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments III) Deptt, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 Two CCs to 4 Two CD Copies