IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22478 of 1999 Between: The Zilla Parishad, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Anantapur. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 G.Laxminarayana, PABR, Sub Division No.1, Kuderu Mandal, Anantapur District. 2 The Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar, Pureni Havili, Hyderabad. .....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 issue an order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the O.A.No.1994 of 1996, dt. 14.10.1998 of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional, by holding that the 1st respondent herein is not entitled for any payment of wages nor regularisation as per G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning Department, dt. 22.4.1994 as his services were already terminated from January, 1992 onwards. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri V.Eswaraiah, J.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. The case of the petitioner is that as per the relief claimed by the 1st respondent before the A.P.Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1994 of 1996 to declare the action of the respondents therein ignoring the petitioner herein in not paying the salary from October, 1991 to till date i.e., the date of filing of the said O.A., is illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to regularize his services in the post of Forest Watcher by implementing the order in O.A.No.233 of 1995, dated 20.1.1995. It is the case of the petitioner that the Tribunal passed orders in O.A.No.233 of 1995, dated 20.1.1995, directing the respondents therein to regularize the service if the first respondent satisfies the requirements laid down in Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance Department, dated 22.4.1994, and other relevant G.Os., issued by the Government from time to time. Thereafter, the first respondent filed O.A.No.710 of 1997 and the same was disposed of by order dated 12.2.1997 directing the respondents therein to process the case of the applicant/first respondent in terms of the orders passed in O.A.No.233 of 1995 and batch and arrange to pay the amount due to him for the period of actual working, if he had really worked. It is stated that the case of the 1st respondent was considered pursuant to the orders in O.A.No.233 of 1995, dated 20.1.1995, by the Zilla Parishad, Anantapur, vide its memo in D.Dis.No.756/95/G2, dated 27.7.1995, rejecting his request for appointment as Watchman. It is stated that suppressing the said memo dated 27.7.1995 the first respondent filed O.A.No.710 of 1997 and obtained orders to process his case in terms of the orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No.233 of 1995 and Batch. It is stated that subsequently contempt case has been filed and nothing has been stated what happened for implementation of the said orders. We are not concerned with the relief claimed in O.A.No.1994 of 1996 with regard to the regularization of the services of the 1st respondent. The Tribunal by order dated 14.10.1998 directed the petitioner herein to release the amount for the payment of wages to the 1st respondent and the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Mandal Parishad, Kuderu, Anantapur District, is directed to pay such wages to the 1st respondent from October, 1991 onwards for the services rendered by him. The Tribunal has not granted any relief of regularization or implementation of the orders in O.A.No.233 of 1995, dated 20.1.1995. The order of the Tribunal is to the effect that the 1st respondent is entitled to the wages for the services rendered by him. We also make it clear that the 1st respondent is entitled for salary only for the period during which he rendered services as a Watchman. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 18.6.2009 kpr