IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND 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 : 2038 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 13.11.2001 in WP NO : 5304 OF 1998 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Secretary, Higher Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. Director of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1. T.M. Bhramarambika w/o P.V.M. Sarma, Part Time Lecturer in Telugu, Sarojini Naidu Vanitah Maha Vidyalaya, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. Sarojini Naidu Vanitah Maha Vidyalaya, Nampally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA The Court made the following : ORAL JUDGMENT: (per THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN) Aggrieved by the order passed in W.P. No. 5304 of 1998 dated 13.11.2001, whereby the appellants herein were directed to consider including certain periods of absence of the ﬁrst respondent herein, as period spent on duty for computing the minimum service of 600 days, required under GO Ms. No. 328 dated 15.10.1997 for consideration of the case of the respondent for regularization, the present appeal is filed by the Government. In an elaborate order, the learned Single Judge has given detailed reasons as to why certain other periods, in addition to those which the appellants – respondents had taken into consideration, should also be taken into account for computing the period of 600 days. The learned Judge, while directing the appellants herein to regularize the services of the ﬁrst respondent herein, had held that she is entitled to salary from the date on which the third respondent sent proposals to the oﬃcial respondent for regularization of the services of the first respondent – petitioner. We see no reason to interfere either with the ﬁndings of the learned Judge or with his conclusions in granting the relief to the ﬁrst respondent – petitioner except to the limited extent that the respondents were directed to regularize the services of the ﬁrst respondent – petitioner. The order of the learned Single Judge is modiﬁed and, accordingly, the appellants shall consider the case of the ﬁrst respondent – petitioner in terms of GO Ms. No. 328 dated 15.10.1997 and in accordance with the observations made in the order under appeal. In so far as the order of the learned Judge directing the appellants to pay arrears of salary from the date the second respondent – Management sent proposals is concerned, we modify the order holding that, in case the ﬁrst respondent – petitioner is regularized in service, she shall be entitled to arrears of salary from the date of the order of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _______________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan July 22, 2008 MAS. ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA { }