THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6607 of 1997 Dated:28.01.2008 Between: T.Venugopalachari S/o Somachari and others. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Managing Director, A.P.State Housing Corporation Limited, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6607 of 1997 ORDER: Petitioners, four in number, seek a direction to the respondents to consider their case for regularization as non- technical Work Inspectors under G.O.Ms.No.182 dated 13.11.1991 on par with their juniors by counting the period of service from 17.12.1990 to 13.12.1994 i.e., from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement as on duty and to consider their case under G.O.Ms.No.182 dated 13.11.1991 for regularization extending to them the regular scales of pay of non-technical work inspectors with effect from the date on which they completed five years of service with all consequential benefits. Petitioners were appointed as Work Inspectors (non- technical) under respondents 3 and 4 in the year 1986. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners filed W.P.No.4906 of 1988 and the first petitioner filed W.P.No.17182 of 1987 claiming regularization of their services. Pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court in the said writ petitions, the petitioners were continued in service. While the writ petitions were pending, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.182 dated 13.11.1991 framing a scheme for regularization of the services of the Work Inspectors both technical and non-technical. This Court, by order in W.P.No.17182 of 1997 dated 18.11.1991, disposed of the said writ petition holding that no further orders was necessary, in view of G.O.Ms.No.182 dated 13.11.1991. Thereafter, the District Collector, vide proceedings dated 17.12.1990, terminated the services of the petitioners on the ground that they were not upto the mark. This Court, by order in W.P.No.17353 of 1990 dated 22.03.1993, directed the second respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioners pursuant to the proceedings dated 31.01.1992. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent reconsidered the case of the petitioners and reinstated them into service on 13.12.1994, subject to their giving an undertaking that they would not claim back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. Petitioners claim to have joined service on 13.12.1994 and to have made a representation seeking regularization of their services as per G.O.Ms.No.182 dated 13.11.1991. They claim to have been orally informed that they were not entitled for regularization on the ground that the said Government Order has been superseded by G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 and that they were not entitled for regularization as Work Inspectors under the said G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, on the ground that they were not in service as on 25.11.1993. Smt.Srikala, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that several persons, who were juniors to the petitioners, were regularized pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.182 dated 13.11.1991 and that the petitioners were entitled to be considered as they were similarly placed. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, they would refer to the names of a few of those persons whose services were regularized. None appears on behalf of the respondents nor is any counter-affidavit filed. The order dated 13.12.1994, whereby the petitioners were reinstated into service, was subject to the condition that they would not claim back wages from the date of termination and that they would be paid daily wages as per the S.S.R., from the date of reinstatement. The question whether the petitioners would be entitled for continuation of service, from the date of their erstwhile termination on 17.12.1990, consequent upon their being reinstated into service on 13.12.1994, has not been considered by the respondents. Smt.Srikala, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that as the petitioners have been reinstated, and have not been appointed afresh, they must be held to have been in service as on 25.11.1993 and therefore, they are entitled to be considered in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.182 dated 13.11.1991. This submission of the learned counsel cannot be said to be without merit. A perusal of the order dated 13.12.1994 indicates that the petitioners were reinstated and not appointed afresh. The order is, however, silent as to how the period from the date of the earlier termination on 17.12.1990 till they were reinstated on 13.12.1994 has to be treated. There shall be a direction to the first respondent to consider the claims of the petitioners for treating this period, i.e., from the date of the earlier termination dated 17.12.1990 till 13.12.1994, as in service. Needless to state that in case the first respondent comes to the conclusion that the petitioners herein are entitled to be treated as having been in service through out from 17.12.1990 onwards, then since they would be deemed to be in service on 25.11.1993, they shall be entitled to be considered for regularization of their service in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. The entire exercise in this regard culminating in the passing of the order shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ________________________ (Ramesh Ranganathan, J) 28th January 2008. sh