HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.2521 of 2008 Date: January 29, 2011 Between: 1. G.V.Krishna Rao & 2 others. … Petitioners and 1. The Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Revenue (Endowments.I) Department, Hyderabad & 2 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.2521 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners entered the service of the Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Indrakeeladri, Vijayawada, Krishna District, third respondent, in January 1995 as contract workers. They worked as such in the third respondent Devasthanam’s choultry. The third respondent Devasthanam under proceedings dated 09.7.2001 addressed the Commissioner of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, second respondent, seeking approval for regularizing the services of the petitioners. As no orders were passed thereupon, the petitioners filed W.P. No.16538 of 2001 before this Court. By order dated 30.12.2002, this Court directed the respondents therein to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization. The petitioners submitted representation dated 20.01.2003 pursuant to the afore stated order to the second respondent. The third respondent Devasthanam also submitted its report dated 01.8.2004 detailing the income of its choultry where the petitioners were working and requesting for permission for regularizing their services as caretakers. 2. The second respondent granted permission thereupon for regularization of the services of the petitioners under proceedings dated 15.4.2005. Accordingly, the third respondent Devasthanam, vide proceedings dated 21.4.2005, regularized the petitioners’ services. While so, the Government issued orders for revising the administrative permission granted earlier by the second respondent. The orders of the Government in this regard were embodied in G.O.Ms. No.1422 dated 27.5.2005, whereby the Government set aside the proceedings of the Commissioner of Endowments, sanctioning regularization of the petitioners’ services. In pursuance thereof, the third respondent Devasthanam issued proceedings dated 30.12.2005 cancelling the regularization orders issued earlier. This action was not preceded by any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Questioning the said G.O., the petitioners filed W.P. No.201 of 2006 before this Court. By order dated 04.01.2006, this Court disposed of the writ petition setting aside the said G.O., with the following directions. (a) the first respondent, the Government of A.P., shall issue a show cause notice to the petitioners, pointing out the defects in the orders of appointment issued in favour of the petitioners. On a consideration of the same, the Government shall pass appropriate orders, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (b) Pending such proceedings, the petitioners shall be continued in service, subject to the same terms and conditions, as were applicable to them, before they came to be appointed on regular basis. (c) In case, the enquiry is not concluded within the period stipulated above, or no extension, sought for, is granted, the petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of orders of regular appointment, without prejudice to the right of the Government, to take further steps. Pursuant to the above order, the petitioners were issued show cause memo dated 01.3.2006. The petitioners submitted their detailed explanation dated 06.4.2006 thereto. Thereafter, no enquiry was conducted by the Government. This aspect is confirmed by the third respondent Devasthanam in its counter wherein it is stated that after the issuance of the show cause notice dated 01.3.2006 by the Government, the third respondent Devasthanam had also submitted its remarks, but no orders were passed by the Government. This counter was filed in July, 2008. No counter is filed by the first respondent government; however the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, upon instructions, stated that no orders had been passed pursuant to the show cause notice dated 01.3.2006. 3. That being so, the direction of this Court under clause (c) of the order dated 04.01.2006 in W.P. No.201 of 2006 would come into operation. As per this clause, if the enquiry was not concluded within a period of two months or such extended period as is sought and granted, the petitioners were held automatically entitled to the benefit of regular appointment. 4. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to treat the petitioners as regular employees with effect from 15.4.2005 and to consequently pay them the regular pay scale on the basis of their regularization in service with effect from such date. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: January 29, 2011. BSB