HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.722 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the order dated 21-12-2005 passed in O.A.No.1022 of 1996 on the ﬁle of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The respondent herein ﬁled the above O.A. seeking direction to the petitioners to regularise his services in the oﬃce of fourth respondent, with all consequential beneﬁts, by setting aside the orders of the ﬁrst respondent dated 06-10-1995. The case of the respondent is that he had been engaged as NMR worker on daily wage basis, under the control of Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Command Area Development Department, Medium Project Division No.1 at Khammam district, and working as such at Taliperu Dam site, from 01-06-1988. It is averred that 6th petitioner had prepared a list of NMRs working on daily wage basis as on 30-06-1994 and the name of the applicant is in the list. The respondent and other NMRs ﬁled O.A.No.6672 of 1993 before the Tribunal and the same was disposed of directing the oﬃcials to consider their claims for regularisation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04- 1994. The authority rejected the claim of the respondent on the ground that the NMR worker, is a labourer supplied by the contractor and as such, he is not entitled to the beneﬁt of G.O.Ms.No.212, vide order dated 06-10-1995, which was challenged in the present O.A. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, allowed the O.A. and set aside the order dated 06-10-1995 and directed the petitioners to regularise the services of the respondent in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994. Aggrieved thereby, the oﬃcial respondents in O.A. ﬁled this writ petition. 3. Heard learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record, including the impugned order. 4. Learned Government Pleader contended that the respondent was engaged through a contractor and as such, he cannot be NMR and claim the beneﬁt of G.O.Ms.No.212. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order, and submitted that the Supreme Court in similar cases, ordered regularisation of services. 5. It is seen from the impugned order that O.A.No.1022 of 1996 was dismissed on 21-02-1997, after contest and the matter was carried to this Court in writ petition being W.P.No.9792 of 1997. A Division Bench of this Court set aside the order of dismissal of O.A., and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, with a direction to record a ﬁnding as to whether the respondent is a contract labourer or has been engaged by the oﬃcials as NMR on daily wages. It was also observed that in case a ﬁnding is recorded that the respondent has been engaged as NMR on daily wages and continued for a requisite period qualifying him to be regularised in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994, suitable direction be issued to the officials. In the instant case, the Tribunal has given a categorical ﬁnding that the respondent had been engaged as NMR and he was at the relevant time working at Taliperu Dam Site under the control of Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Command Area Development Department, Medium Project Division No.1 in Khammam district. 6. It is brought to our notice that persons working on NMR basis at Taliperu Dam Site, Khammam district, from 1986, as that of the respondent, have ﬁled Civil Appeal No.4443 of 2008 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order dated 02-09-2005 dismissing W.P.No.12363 of 2005 and order dismissing Review Petition No.33006 of 2005 by this Court, denying regularisation and other beneﬁts sought. The Apex Court in its order dated 11-07-2008 in Civil Appeal No.4443 of 2008 (S.NAGESWARA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH) held as under: “4. The appellants submit that in regard to the similarly place daily wage employees in the very same project, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had directed regularisation, by order dated 13-04-2005 in WP No.10282 of 1998 – Jagannadham Vs. Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Wing & Ors., by negativing the contention of the department that the said daily wage employees were not directly employed by the department, but were employed through a contractor. The State Government had challenged the said order before this Court in SLP (C) No.23679 of 2005 (Engineer-in-Chief, IWE Vs. G.Jagannadham & Ors). This Court upheld the direction regarding regularisation, without any monetary beneﬁts, by order dated 27-2-2007. 5. The facts in this case and the facts in Jagannadham (supra) as also the contentions urged are virtually the same. In view of the above, we are of the view that interest of justice will be served if this appeal is disposed of in terms of the decision in Jagannadham (supra) by directing regularisation of the services of appellants without any monetary benefits. 6. We accordingly allow these appeals and direct the respondents to consider the cases of the appellants for regularisation without past monetary beneﬁts and pass appropriate orders within three months from today. The three months period shall be reckoned in respect of each of the appellants, from the date on which he reports to the fifth respondent for regularisation.” 7. A reading of the above judgment of the Apex Court shows that the direction of this Court regarding regularisation was upheld, but without monetary beneﬁts. Thus, the Tribunal had relied upon the judgment of this Court, which had become ﬁnal, but with some modiﬁcation by the Supreme Court, as observed in the said Civil Appeal. The learned Government Pleader has not demonstrated as to how the respondent herein is diﬀerent from the petitioner in W.P.No.10282 of 1998. 8. In the foregoing circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed conﬁrming the order of the Tribunal, subject to the modiﬁcation that petitioners shall consider the case of the respondent for regularisation, without past monetary benefits. No order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. _________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 21-10-2008 bsc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 722 of 2008 Between: 1 The Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Wing, Erum Manzil, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer, I & CAD Irrigation Circle, Nakkalagutta, Post: Hanmakonda, Warangal District. 3 The Chief Engineer, Irrigation Wing, Erum Manzil, Hyderabad. 4 The Exe. Engineer, I & CAD, Medium Project Division, No.1 Satyanarayanapuram, Cherla Mandal, Khammam Dist 5 The Dy. Exe. Engineer, Sub Division No.I, Satyanarayanapuram, Cherla Mandal, Khammam District. 6 The Asst. Exe. Engineer, Taliperu Dam Works Peddamedesileru, Cherla Mandal, Khammam District. 7 The Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, I & CAD Dept., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Y.Sudhakar, N.M.R. on daily wage Worker Working under the Control of Executive Engineer, I & CAD Medium Projects Division No.1 Satyanarayanapuram, Cherla Mandl, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENT 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 a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon'ble A.P. Admn. Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A.No.1022/1996 dated 21.12.2005 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.SUDHIR KUMAR The Court made the following :