THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION Nos. 2143 of 2008 & 8750 of 2011 Common Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions being the same, they are clubbed and disposed of by this common order. Assailing the action of the respondent-authorities in not regularizing the services of the petitioners as drivers, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The petitioners, who were working as drivers filed O.A. No. 2239 of 2003 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad seeking regularisation of their services as drivers in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22.4.1994. Before the Tribunal, the petitioners contended that as they completed five years of continuous service as drivers as on 19.8.1998, they are entitled to be regularised as such as per G.O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22.4.1994. Further, they also relied upon the judgment of a division bench of this Court in Secretary, A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society vs. P. Venkata Kumari & Others ([1]), wherein the Division Bench held that the services of the contingent employees who have completed five years of continuous service as on 19.8.1998, i.e., as on the date on which Act, 27 of 1998 had come into force, shall be considered for regularisation in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22.4.1994. Initially, while admitting the O.A., the Tribunal granted interim order directing the respondents to maintain status-quo with regard to the petitioners as on that date. Subsequently, the Tribunal, while taking into account the fact that the petitioners were appointed under the third party system, held that they are not entitled for regularisation of their services and accordingly through order dated 9.10.2007, it dismissed the O.A. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have put in 5 years continuous service as on 19.8.1998, i.e., the date on which Act, 27 of 1998 has come into force and hence they are entitled to be regularised as per G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-II has submitted that the petitioners were engaged as drivers under a third party system on contract basis, due to shortage of drivers and hence, they are not entitled for regularisation of their service as per the scheme framed in G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Services –II for the respondents and perused the order dated 9.10.2007 of the Tribunal. However, as the petitioners claim that they have put in five years of continuous service as on 19.8.1998, they are entitled to be regularised in terms of G.O. Ms. No.212, dt. 22.4.1994, we deem it appropriate to permit the petitioners to make a representation to the Government for considering their cases for regularisation as per G.O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22.4.1994. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to make a representation to the Government seeking regularisation of their services in terms of G.O. Ms. 212, dated 22.4.1994 and on such representation being filed by the petitioners, the Government shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks. No costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 24th June, 2011 ________________ K.G. SHANKAR,J pnb [1] 2001(3) ALT 366