IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 7040 of 2001 Between: 1 B.CHANDRAIH S/o. LINGAIAH O/O. A.P. State Housing Corp. , Tirupathi, Nirmithi Kendra Office, Chittoor District. 2 A.VENKATESWARLU S/O SUBRAMANYAM O/O. A.P. State Housing Corp. , Tirupathi, Nirmithi Kendra Office, Chittoor District. 3 P.SUBRAMANYAM S/o. NARAYANA O/O. A.P. State Housing Corp. , Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 4 G.SUDHARSHAN REDDY S/o.RAMA KRISHNA REDDY O/O. A.P. State Housing Corp. , Molakala Cheruvu Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Managing Director, A.P.State Housing Corporation Limited Himayathnagar, Hyderabad 2 The Divisional Manager, A.P.State Housing Corporation Limited Chittoor, Chittoor Dist. .....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 to issue any apporpriate writ, order or direction, preferably a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents are not regularising our service though we are eligible for the same and not paying regular pay scales on par with regular employees is illegal, arbitary and unconstituional and pass such further or other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAJASEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MOHAN RAMI REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.7040 OF 2001 ORDER: The petitioners challenge the action of the respondents in not regularizing their services though they are eligible for the same and also in not paying regular pay scales on par with regular employees. Heard Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.Mohan Rami Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation. It is brought to my notice that an identical issue involving a Godown Watchman working in the Corporation was the subject matter of Writ Appeal No.961 of 2001. A copy of the order dated 14.07.2008 passed by a learned Division Bench of this Court in the Writ Appeal is placed before me. Therein, the learned Division Bench, duly recognizing the fact that the Government had rejected the request of the respondent Corporation for sanction of additional posts vide proceedings dated 07.02.2006, accepted that it would not be possible for the Corporation to regularize the services of a Watchman under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 without a sanctioned post. However, the learned Division Bench took note that sufficient time had elapsed after the rejection proceedings dated 07.02.2006 and that it may well be possible that vacancies would have arisen in the sanctioned posts upon retirement/resignation of existing regular employees. Keeping these facts in mind, the learned Division Bench directed the Corporation to consider the case of the Watchman before it for regularization of his services in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 as and when regular vacancies arose in the existing sanctioned posts or when the Government accorded sanction for additional posts. The Division Bench also took note of the fact that the Watchman before it had been continued in service for a long time and directed the Corporation to continue him in service till he is regularized. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a similar order would meet the ends of justice in this case and protect his clients’ rights. In view of the said submission, the present writ petition is disposed of in accordance with the directions of the learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.961 of 2001. The respondent Corporation is directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization of their services in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 as and when regular vacancies arise in the existing sanctioned posts or when the Government accords permission for additional posts, whichever is earlier. The respondent Corporation shall continue the petitioners in service till such time, keeping in mind the fact that they are still continuing in service. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 11th June, 2009. VGSR/PGS