THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No. 4118 OF 2009 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted essentially seeking directions to the respondent – Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (TTD) to regularize the services of the writ petitioner as an Assistant Stapathy in its service. The case of the writ petitioner is that he is presently working as a Stapathy in the Engineering wing of the respondent – Devasthanam and that he was initially appointed on 19.11.1976 as a Works Supervisor in Stapathy Section of the Engineering wing, on daily wage basis. The writ petitioner asserts that he has been appointed as an Assistant Stapathy on 22.07.1980, though on daily wage basis. The writ petitioner has enumerated the work carried out by him at various institutions run and managed by the respondent – Devasthanam, including Sri Padmavati Ammavari Temple at Tiruchanuru and the Temple at Srinivasa Mangapuram. The writ petitioner has also pointed out that after his initial recruitment, when the respondent – Devasthanam submitted proposals to the State Government, requesting to exempt it from the purview of the instructions issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms. No. 535 Employment and Social Welfare Department, dated 28.06.1975, the State Government passed orders through their G.O.Ms.No. 1458 Revenue (Endowments-III) Department, dated 19.09.1981, according sanction to the respondent – Devasthanam, as a special case, to regularize the services of the persons recruited on N.M.R. basis between 01.01.1975 and 31.12.1978, and in spite of the same, the services have not been regularized. It is the assertion of the writ petitioner that at the time when he has been recruited, on daily wage basis, as an Assistant Stapathy, the requisite qualifications were 1) a certificate from a Silpa School; and 2) for such candidates, who do not possess such a certificate, the recommendation of any reputed Stapathy about the competence of the candidate would also be considered. Pursuant to the orders passed by the State Government through G.O.Ms. No. 1458, dated 19.09.1981, when the respondent – Devasthanam has regularized the services of several candidates, the case of the writ petitioner could not be taken up for regularization, as he was kept under suspension at that point of time i.e. on 19.04.1982 with regard to the enquiry relating to the sculpture work of an idol. The writ petitioner points out that he was reinstated on 20.12.1982 and ever since, he has been representing for regularization of his services. The respondent has terminated his services on 01.04.1983 without assigning any reasons and without conducting any enquiry. That led to the writ petitioner instituting Writ Petition No. 6552 of 1988 in this Court. It was disposed of on 31.01.1994, leaving it open to the writ petitioner to approach the Board of Trustees of the Temple or the State Government, for necessary relief. Since there was no response from the Board of Trustees for his reinstatement, the writ petitioner has invoked the provisions available under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D. No. 106 of 1994. The Industrial Tribunal held the action of the respondent in terminating his services as invalid and directed the respondent to reinstate the writ petitioner into service with benefits of continuity of service and attendant benefits. That Award was called in question by the respondent by instituting Writ Petition No. 35919 of 1997 before this Court. However, instead of paying him wages, without reinstating, the respondents passed an order on 21.03.1998 reinstating him back to duty. Writ Petition No. 35919 of 1997 came to be decided on 14.03.2002, and the matter was remanded to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh disposal. However, the writ petitioner was directed to be continued in service till disposal of the case by the Tribunal. On the return journey, the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court passed Award on 15.02.2006 setting aside the order of termination of the services of the writ petitioner and directed him to be continued in service with all attendant benefits and with continuity of service and 50% of back wages from 01.04.1983 to 26.08.1998. This Award again gave rise to institution of Writ Petition No. 16690 of 2006 by the respondent. By the judgment, dated 01.08.2008, that Writ Petition was partly allowed, modifying the Award, dated 15.02.2006 passed in I.D.No. 106 of 1994 holding that the present petitioner would be entitled to be reinstated into service with continuity of service, excluding the period between 01.04.1983 and 25.03.1988 and without back wages. The writ petitioner then carried the matter by way of Writ Appeal No. 1550 of 2008. That Writ Appeal was dismissed on 24.11.2008 holding that 25% of back wages for the period from 01.01.1983 to 25.03.1988, which was deposited into this Court, pursuant to an earlier order passed, was permitted to be withdrawn by the writ petitioner. In view of these developments, the writ petitioner would not be entitled for the attendant benefits for the period from 01.04.1983 to 25.03.1988. Therefore, the question of regularization of the services of the writ petitioner was required to be re- examined. It will be important to notice that the State Government passed orders through their G.O. Ms. No. 296 Revenue (Endowments-III) Department, dated 19.04.1988, permitting the respondent – Devasthanam to regularize the service of the persons in question under intimation to the Government. It will also be appropriate to notice, at this stage, that the respondent – Devasthanam has prepared proposals for regularization of several unabsorbed Mazdoors, Helpers, Work Inspectors working under its control on 22.09.2004. The list contained 54 names and the name of the petitioner figures at Sl.No. 35 thereof. It was clearly indicated that his designation as at that time was Stapathy. It will also be appropriate to notice, at this stage, that entertaining the request of the respondent – Devasthanam, the State Government passed orders through their G.O.Ms. No. 1292 Revenue (Endowments- III) Department, dated 10.10.2007, accepting the proposal of the Executive Officer of the respondent – Devasthanam to absorb and regularize the services of 251 N.M.Rs./Gardeners/Work Inspectors/Canteen Workers/Mazdoors/Volunteers working in the respondent – Devasthanam. However, it should also be noticed, at this stage, that the regularization of the services of such persons was ordered to be made against the available existing vacancies from the date of issue of these orders. It is also further insisted that the case of only those candidates, who are on rolls as on the date when this G.O. was issued, alone should be considered. In fact, the proposals of the Executive Officer were submitted on 09.04.1999 and they were followed up again on 09.08.2004 and 23.10.2005. It, therefore, becomes obvious that a list has been published by the respondent – Devasthanam on 22.09.2004 containing 54 names, a reference to these 54 names was made in paragraph 2 of G.O.Ms.No. 1292, dated 10.10.2007. It is, therefore, reasonable to infer that the State Government has accepted the proposal of the Executive Officer of the respondent – Devasthanam to regularize the services of 54 persons, made a mention of in paragraph 2 of the said G.O., and these 54 persons are obviously those whose particulars have been notified on 22.09.2004. As was already noted supra, the name of the writ petitioner is included at Sl.No. 35 of the said note dated 22.09.2004 and his designation was shown as a Stapathy. It is the case of the writ petitioner that several others have been accorded the benefit of regularization, pursuant to the orders passed by the State Government through their G.O.Ms.No. 1292, dated 10.10.2007, but however, the case of the writ petitioner has not been taken up for such consideration. At this stage, the respondent – Devasthanam passed orders through their proceedings dated 17.02.2009 informing the writ petitioner that he is entitled to be reinstated as N.M.R. Skilled Worker only with continuity of service duly excluding the period from 01.04.1983 to 25.03.1998 and without back wages. Since there was no continuity of service during the period aforementioned, he was not entitled for regularization, in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 1292, dated 10.10.2007. This order gave rise to the present Writ Petition. The respondents have filed a very exhaustive and detailed counter affidavit, tracing out all the important events that have taken place in the career of the writ petitioner from the time he was recruited as an N.M.R. Skilled Worker. However, the stand of the respondent appears to be that the writ petitioner does not possess the necessary qualifications for being recruited as an Assistant Stapathy and, therefore, his services cannot be regularized. It is pointed out that the Service Rules of the employees of the respondent – Devasthanam have been approved and got published through G.O.Ms. No. 1060, Revenue Department, dated 24.10.1989 and the requisite qualifications for the post of the Assistant Stapathy, as notified are: 1) must possess a certificate showing successful completion of Sculpture training in any one of the reputed institutions; 2) must have practical experience of five years in a major work with a specific recognition of a reputed Stapathy. Two features stand out in this regard 1) these recruitment rules have been notified on 24.10.1989, long after the writ petitioner was initially recruited; 2) the writ petitioner had put in more than five years of service in the Engineering Department of the respondent – Organization itself. All this apart, it is the proposal of the Executive Officer of the respondent – Devasthanam which fell for consideration before the State Government, ultimately, leading to the State Government passing orders through their G.O.Ms. No. 1292, dated 10.10.2007 accepting the said proposals. As was already noticed, the name of the writ petitioner is one such, which is included at Sl. No. 35 of the list of 54 candidates, which was published on 22.09.2004, a reference to which list could be gathered from paragraph 2 of G.O.Ms. No. 1292. It, therefore, emerges that the writ petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the sweep of the orders passed by the State Government, through their G.O.Ms. No. 1292, dated 10.10.2007. The proceedings, dated 17.02.2009 came to be passed after examining the impact of the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 16690 of 2006 and Writ Appeal No. 1550 of 2008 which, in turn, arose out of I.D. No. 106 of 1004 raised by the writ petitioner. It will be important to notice that the learned Single Judge of this Court, while deciding Writ Petition No. 16690 of 2006, directed the reinstatement of the writ petitioner into service with continuity of service benefits. The Division Bench, which passed orders on 24.11.2008, only modified the order passed by the learned Single Jude, according permission and sanction for withdrawing 25% of back wages which were deposited into this Court earlier. In fact, the learned Judges of the Division Bench have clearly recorded that, in their Lordships opinion, learned Single Judge has not committed any error with regard to the conclusion reached by him. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 16690 of 2006 and the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1550 of 2008, strictly speaking, enable the respondent to reinstate the petitioner back into service only as an N.M.R. Skilled Worker. The fact remains that before his oral termination on 01.04.1983, he was working as an Assitant Stapathy. It is, therefore, only appropriate that pursuant to the orders passed by the State Government through their G.O.Ms. No. 1292, accepting the proposals of the Executive officer of the respondent – Devasthanam and according him permission to regularize the services of the personnel suggested by him, the service of the writ petitioner should be regularized in the category of Assistant Stapathy, but not as a Skilled Worker. It is no doubt true that the State Government has accorded permission to regularize the services of such personnel with effect from the date on which the said order has been passed. It is also equally true that the State Government has confined the operation of the said G.O. to those persons, who are available on rolls as on that date. The writ petitioner, in fact, was working on the rolls of TTD as on the date when the State Government passed orders in G.O.Ms. No. 1292. I, therefore, allow this Writ Petition and direct the respondent – Devasthanam to regularize the service of the writ petitioner as an Assistant Stapathy with effect from the date on which the State Government passed orders through their G.O.Ms. No. 1292 and accordingly, he will be entitled to all benefits, which a regular Assistant Stapathy would be entitled to in the service of the respondent – Devasthanam with effect from that date. Appropriate orders in this regard may be passed, at any rate before 31.12.2009. No costs. -------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J 21st August 2009 ksld