IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 961 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 3574 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.V.CH.NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.T.RAMAKRISHNA RAO The Division Bench of this Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN. * * * WRIT APPEAL NO. 9 6 1 OF 2001. ORAL JUDGMENT : ( Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari ) The present writ appeal is filed by the A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited against the order of the learned single Judge in WP.No.3574 of 1999 dated 17-1-2001 whereby the appellants were directed to regularize the service of the respondent-writ petitioner from 25-11-1993 as he has completed five years of service by that date without insisting for existence of a clear vacancy as stipulated in clause (5) of GO.Ms.No.212, dated 22-4-1994. Similar issue was considered by the learned single Judge in the light of the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 as amended by Act 27 of 1998 in WP.No.7175 of 1999 and batch dated 08-12-2000 wherein it was held that temporary employees are entitled to claim regularization of their services as and when they complete five years of service, if they were appointed prior to 25-111993 and continuing as such on the cut off date i.e., 25-11-1993. The judgment in WP.No.7175 of 1999 and batch shall form part of the order in WP.No.3574 of 1999, which is impugned in this writ appeal. The learned single Judge also had observed that consequent upon his regularization, the writ petitioner be granted seniority, attendant benefits, pensionary benefits as were enjoyed by the regular employees. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants preferred this writ appeal. 2. Sri K. Mohan Rami Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, contended that among the conditions stipulated in the G.O., for regularization of the services of employees, there should be a sanctioned post. Learned Counsel would also refer to the proceedings dated 07-2-2006 in support of his contention that the Government had rejected the appellants request for sanction of posts. Learned Counsel would submits that, in the absence of any sanctioned posts being available in the corporation, the order of the learned single Judge directing regularization of the services of the respondent-writ petitioner is incapable of compliance since it runs contrary to the terms and conditions of the G.O. Learned Counsel would fairly state that the respondent-writ petitioner is still continuing in the services and they are still being paid the time scales of pay. 3. It is no doubt true, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, that among the conditions stipulated in the G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22-4-1994 is that there should be sanctioned posts available. When the proceedings dated 07-2-2006 was issued, there were no sanctioned posts in the Appellant-Corporation. More than 2 ½ years have elapsed since then and it is not known whether any vacancy is now available among the sanctioned posts consequent upon the retirement or resignation of the regular employees. Ends of justice would be met if the order of the Learned Single Judge is modified and the appellants is directed to consider the case of the respondent-writ petitioner for regularization of services in accordance with GO.Ms.No.212, dated 22-4-1994 as and when regular vacancies arises in the existing sanctioned posts or the Government accords permission for additional sanctioned posts. 4. Since the respondent-writ petitioner is said to be continuing in service for nearly a decade and half, we consider it appropriate that the respondent-writ petitioner be continued in services till his services are confirmed for regularization in accordance with GO.Ms.No.212, dated 22-4-1994. 5. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ------------------------------------- JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. ----------------------------------------------- JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN. 14-7-2008. I s L ........REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER. To 1. 2.2 CD copies