IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.NO.26542 OF 2000 Date:08-12-2010 Between:- R.Purushotham Reddy and another .. Petitioners And Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, rep.by its Executive Officer, Tirupathi. .. Respondent ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring action of the respondent in not regularising services of the petitioners as Helpers on par with their juniors as arbitrary and illegal. According to the petitioners, they joined service of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (T.T.D.) as casual labour in the months of October, 1985 and September, 1984 respectively and were discharging duties as Helpers in Water Works Department of the respondent institution. However, their services were terminated illegally in the year 1987 and therefore, they filed W.P.No.12839 of 1988 and in view of the interim orders passed therein on 05-12-1988 in W.P.M.P.No.16169 of 1988, the petitioners were reinstated into service. Though the grievance of the petitioners is that their services were not regularised, it appears that during the pendency of this writ petition, in the year 2007, through G.O.Ms.No.1292 dated 10-10-2007, services of the petitioners were absorbed on regular basis and they are continuing as such. Now the grievance of the petitioners is that they are entitled for regularisation of their services from the date of their joining duty in the months of October, 1985 and September, 1984 respectively. Whereas it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioners were engaged as casual labour and a policy decision was taken by the respondent for regularisation of the services of certain employees those who were engaged during the year from 01-04-1984 to 31-03-1988 and were on the rolls of T.T.D. as NMR/Casual Labourer/Consolidated pay/ Daily Wages/Volunteers etc as on the date of sending proposals to the Government for regularisation of their services, were absorbed into the regular services of T.T.D. as per the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.390 and 391, Rev. (Endts.III) Dept dated 06-05-1991. The petitioners were not on the rolls of the T.T.D as on the date of sending proposals to the Government. Therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit of the said G.Os. The petitioners were taken into service as per the orders of this Court on 05-12-1988 and their services were regularised thereafter vide G.O.Ms.No.1292 dated 10-10-2007. As noticed above, persons who worked during the period from 01-04-1984 to 31-03-1988 and were on the rolls and were engaged continuously were only entitled for regularisation and not the persons like the petitioners. Even otherwise, the case of the petitioners was taken up during the pendency of the writ petition and their services are regularised as noticed above. In those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief as sought for. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. However, this will not preclude the petitioners from filing an application before the appropriate authority seeking regularisation of their services on par with their juniors, if any, engaged by the T.T.D. as per law. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________ C.V.RAMULU, J 8th December 2010 AMD