HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.884 of 2003 JUDGMENT: ((Per. Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is directed by the appellants against the order dated 12.12.2000 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court allowing W.P.No.4775 of 1998 filed by the respondents herein. The case of the respondents-writ petitioners is that the 1st petitioner is working as Electrician-cm-Plumber and petitioners 2 to 4 are working as cooks in the 3rd respondent residential school on daily wages since August, 1982. It is stated that since the services of the writ petitioners are not regularized on the ground that they have not completed five years of service as on the cut-off date 25.11.1993, they have filed the above writ petition seeking a direction to the appellants herein to regularize their services in the posts in which they are now working from the date of their appointment on daily wages and to pay them regular scales of pay. The learned single Judge having taken the view that the State cannot take shelter under the amended Act 27 of 1998 held that the services of the writ petitioners have to be regularized following the judgment of the apex Court in DISTRICT COLLECTOR/CHAIRMAN V. M.L.SINGH[1] and accordingly allowed the present writ petition along with batch, by a common order dated 12.12.2000, with the following directions: “Accordingly a direction is given to the respondent- society to regularize the services of the petitioners in all these writ petitions as per the interpretation placed by the Supreme Court in the judgment referred supra. Consequent upon the regularization of their services, the petitioners are entitled to claim seniority and other attendant benefits including terminal and pensionary benefits that are applicable to regular employees except the monetary benefits. As far as monetary benefit is concerned, it is limited from the date of filing of the writ petition. The respondents are given four weeks time to regularize the services of the petitioners and eight weeks time to pay arrears of salary in the time scale of pay attached to the post after deducting the amounts paid from the date of filing of the writ petition. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners at length. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the respondents-writ petitioners have not completed five years of continuous service as on 25.11.1993 which is the statutory requirement for regularization of their services and that the learned Single Judge has erred in directing regularization of services of the respondents-writ petitioners who were not having regular employment for a period of five years, which is contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in (2009) 8 SCC 431. He also contended that the order of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 since no daily-wage worker is entitled to regularization of services, which power cannot be relaxed by the State Government. He also pointed out that the appellant society had regularized the services of eligible daily-wage employees as per G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance and Planning dated 22.04.1994 prospectively. Per contra, the core contention of learned Counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners is that the State Government cannot take shelter under the amended Act 27 of 1998, as per the judgment of the apex Court in first supra and reject the claim of the respondents-writ petitioners in regularizing their services. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, perusing the material available on record and judgments of the Apex Court and also our Court, we are of the opinion that the subject matter of this writ appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court, as referred to by the learned Counsel for the appellants, in A.MANJULA BHASHINI V. A.P. WOMEN’S COOP.FINANCE CORPORATION LTD[2], which was allowed holding as under: “93. The 1994 Act was enforced with effect from 25.11.1993 i.e., the date on which the Ordinance was published in the Official Gazette. Therefore, that date had a direct bearing on the policy of regularization circulated vide the G.O. dated 22.4.1994, which was issued by the State Government in exercise of its executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution. When that policy was engrafted in the 1994 Act in the form of the proviso to Section 7, the legislature could not have fixed any date other than 25.11.1993 for determining the eligibility of daily-wage employees who fulfilled the requirement of 5 years’ continuous service. If any other date had been fixed for counting 5 years’ service of daily-wage employees for the purpose of proviso to Section 7, the object sought to be achieved by enacting the 1994 Act would have been defeated, inasmuch as the regular recruitment could not have been made for appointment against the sanctioned posts and back door entrants would have occupied all the posts. Therefore, the cut-off date i.e., 25.11.1993 prescribed by the legislature for determining the eligibility of daily-wage employees and others covered by Section 7 of the 1994 Act cannot be dubbed as arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational or discriminatory. ………………….. 101. As a corollary, we hold that the declaration made by the Division Bench that all persons who completed 5 years’ service as on the date of coming into force of Act 27 of 1998 would be entitled to be considered for regularization of their services is legally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. In the result, the appeals filed by the employees (CAs Nos.3702-07, 3709, 3710, 3721, 3733, 3734, 3737, 3742, 3744, 3748, 3749 and 3751 of 2006) are dismissed and those filed by the State Government and agencies/instrumentalities of the State (CAs Nos.3685, 3712-18, 3723, 3724, 3726-32, 3750 and 3752-55 of 2006) are allowed. 102. The declaration made by the Division Bench that the ban on regularization will be effective from 19.8.1998 i.e., the date on which Act 27 of 1998 came into force and that all persons who have completed 5 years’ service as on that date would be entitled to be considered for regularization of service is set aside. It is, however, made clear that the daily-wage employees and others who are covered by Section 7 of the 1994 Act (amended) and whose services have not been regularized so far, shall be entitled to be considered for regularization and their services shall be regularized subject to fulfillment of the conditions enumerated in the G.O. dated 22.4.1994. 103. With a view to obviate further litigation on this issue, we direct the Government of Andhra Pradesh, its officers and agencies/instrumentalities of the State to complete the exercise for regularization of the services of eligible employees within four months of the receipt/production of copy of this order, without being influenced by the fact that the application, writ petition or appeal filed by any such employee may have been dismissed by the Tribunal or the High Court or this Court. Since some of the appeals decided by this order relate to part-time employees, we direct that similar exercise be undertaken in their cases and completed within four months keeping in view the conditions enumerated in G.O. (P) No.112 dated 23.7.1997.” In the circumstances, following the above judgment of the apex Court and for the reasons mentioned therein, this Writ Appeal deserves to be allowed. In view of the above, this Writ Appeal is allowed in terms of the apex Court judgment referred second supra by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.12.2000 in W.P.No.4775 of 1998. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 08.09.2011 Gsn. [1] 1998 (2) ALT 5 (SC) [2] (2009) 8 SUPREME COURT CASES 431