IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 5697 of 2008 Between: 1 The Director of Health, A.P. Hyderabad. 2 The District Medical and Health Officer, Ananthapur. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by it principal Secretary,Health,Medial and Family Welfare Department,Secretariat, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 D.Subbamma, Daily Wage Worker, O/o.The District Medical and Health Officer, Ananthapur. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. (2nd respondent is a formal party, no relief is sought against him) .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue a writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the orders dated 27-08-2007 in O.A.No.1021/2006 with VMA NO.477/2006 on the file of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash or set aside thesame by holding as erroneous and contrary to law and erroneous and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 27.08.2007, made in O.A. No. 1021 of 2006 with VMA No. 477 of 2006, by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and quash the same holding it as erroneous, the present writ petition is filed. The first respondent herein filed the above OA questioning proceedings Rc. No. 11611/E4.C/1999 dated 25.10.2005 issued by the first petitioner whereby his request to regularise her services in terms of GO Ms. No. 212 F & P, dated 22.4.1994 with all consequential benefits including regular scales of pay and allowances was rejected. The first respondent had been working as a Sweeper in the office of the District Medical and Health Office, Ananthapur, and she was paid consolidated wage of Rs.200/- from March, 1988 to July, 1994 and at Rs.300/- per month thereafter. She did not attend to her duties from February 1990 to May, 1990 on account of maternity leave and again in the month of August, 1991, she did not attend the duties in view of abortion. It is case of the petitioner that even though she completed five years of service by the cut off date i.e. 25.11.1993, as stipulated in GO Ms. No. 212 dated 22.4.1994, she was not considered for regularisation in view of the above breaks in the service, even though during the said breaks, her husband worked in her place, without causing inconvenience in the office. It is further her case that even though the period of absence had been condoned by the second petitioner herein requesting the Government to regularise her services in accordance with the GO Ms. No. 212 dated 22.4.2004, the same was rejected by Memo dated 21.4.2004, pursuant to which, the impugned order is passed. The Tribunal by the order impugned in this writ petition, allowed the O.A. setting aside the impugned memo and declaring the first respondent to be entitled for regularisation under GO Ms. No. 212 dated 22.4.1994 and directed the petitioners to pass consequential orders within a period of eight weeks. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred this writ petition inter alia contending that there is no provision in the special enactment A.P. (Regularisation of Appointments to Public Services and Regularisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 2 of 1994 to entertain any condonation of break up period or even there is no provision in the scheme to make any such condonation of break up period and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. There is no dispute with regard to the factual events. There is also no dispute that the petitioner completed five years of service as on the cut off date i.e. 25.11,1993, but for the breaks in service in view of the petitioner going on maternity leave and in view of the abortion, which totals to 90 days. It is not in dispute that the proposal submitted by the second petitioner herein for regularisation of the first respondent after condoning the period of absence, was rejected by the Government through orders dated 21.4.2004, which came to be assailed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, placing reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Female Workers (S.C) allowed the O.A. holding that even though no power is given in A.P. (Regularisation of Appointments to Public Services and Regularisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, in accordance with the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, female workers on the muster rolls must be extended the maternity leave on par with regular employees. Having through the order passed by the Tribunal, we do not see any illegality. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. __________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J. March 18, 2008 MAS.