IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3219 of 1999 Between: 1 The Govt. of A.P., Rep by Secretary Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Project Director, Dist Rural Development Agency, Medak Dist., SANGAREDDY. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 SMT. SHANTHAMMA, D.R.D.A., Sangareddy, Medak Dist. 2 A.P. Adminstrative Tribunal, Rep by Registrar, Purani Haveli, 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for records in OA.No.4468/97 Dt: 20-8-98 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and to quash the same, as being illegal and unsustainable and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.JAGANNATHA SARMA The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ } THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3219 of 1999 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The petitioners filed this writ petition questioning the order of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A.4468/97, dated 20.08.1998. The 1st respondent filed O.A.4468/97 on the file of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) seeking a direction, directing the petitioners herein to regularize her services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning (FW-PC-III) Department, dated 22-04-1994 with all consequential benefits by holding that the order of the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Hyderabad in Order No.8845/RD-V(2)/96, dated 01-04-1997 rejecting her request for regularization of her services, as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the 1st respondent is that the 1st respondent herein was originally appointed as Water woman from 15.04.1983 to 04.06.1985 on a consolidated pay of Rs.125/- per month and subsequently her remuneration was enhanced from Rs.125/- to Rs.150/- per month by the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Medak District vide proceedings No.A1/496/86, dated 30.06.1986. Thereafter, her request for regularization of her services was negatived by the 2nd petitioner herein, holding that she was given the minimum scale of Attender i.e. Rs.750/- per month with effect from 14.08.1991 as per the Minutes of the Governing Body held on 14.08.1991 and she has completed a period of 2 years 3 months service as on 25.11.1993 as against 5 years of continuous service on 25.11.1993, as prescribed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning (FW-PC-III) Department, dated 22.04.1994 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for absorption in regular scale. It is the contention of the petitioners herein before the Tribunal is that as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, to claim regularization of service, one should have completed 5 years continuous service in the respective cadre as on cut off date i.e. 25.11.1993, and the 1st respondent herein has not completed 5 years service as on 25.11.1993. But it appears that the 1st respondent was in regular service from 14.05.1985. In the counter it was not indicated that there is no clear vacancy. Accordingly, the petitioners herein were directed to consider the case of the 1st respondent herein for regularization of her services, as per the terms and conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22- 04-1994 read with Act 3/98 within three months from the date of receipt of the order in O.A.4468/1997, under which the order of the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Hyderabad dated 01-04-1997 was set aside. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the 1st respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that she was in regular service, working as a Water Woman in the office of the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Medak District from 15-04-1983 and she was having more than 5 years of continuous service as on the cut off date, as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994 and therefore, she is entitled for absorption in regular scale. It is further stated that even as per the revised amended G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 23.07.1997, she is entitled for regularization of her services. We do not find any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the impugned order. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the case. We are of the opinion that as the Tribunal, in the impugned order, has already directed the petitioners herein to consider the case of the 1st respondent herein for regularization of her services, in terms and conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, it is always open for the petitioners to consider and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law and the Government Orders issued from time to time, which are in force. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J ____________________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY,J Dated: 17.06.2009 Dsr .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 A.P. Adminstrative Tribunal, Rep by Registrar, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. 2 2. 2CCs to 3. 2CD copies