WP/11436/2015 of The Chief Executive Officer, Vs Smt. E. Bhagya Lakshmi on 29 March 2026

1. THE CHIEF EXE ONGOLE, PRAKAS

1. SMT E BHAGYA LA AS N.M.R. TYPIS PRAKASAM DISTR

2. THE REGISTRA TRIBUNAL, HYDER

3. THE GOVERNME PANCHAYAT RAJ SECRETARIAT BU

4. THE GOVERNMEN AND PLANNING HYDERABAD.

5. THE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT, (RESPONDENTS 2 Petition under Articl circumstances stated in pleased to issue an appro E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Y, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G RIT PETITION NO: 11436/2015 CUTIVE OFFICER,, ZILLA PRAJA SAM DISTRICT. AND AKSHMI, D/O. SUBRAHREANYAM, O ST, POTTI SRIRAMULU STREET, RICT. AR, ANDHRA PRADESH ADM RABAD, ENT OF A P, REP. BY ITS J & RURAL DEVELOPMENT D ILDINGS, HYDERABAD. NT OF A P, REP BY ITS SECRETA DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT NER, PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL D HIMAYATHNAGAR, A.P., 2, 3, 4 AND 5 ARE NOT NECESSARY ...RES le 226 of the Constitution of India pra the affidavit filed therewith, the High opriate writ or order more particularly DESH

DRANATH ROY GEDELA A PARISHAD, ...PETITIONER OCC: WORKED GIDDALURU, MINISTRATIVE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT, ARY, FINANCE BUILDINGS, EVELOPMENT HYDERABAD. Y PARTIES) SPONDENT(S): aying that in the h Court may be one in nature of writ of Certiorari declaring the impugned order dated 12.10.2012 passed in O.A. No.1542 of 2009 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad is contrary to the statutory rules and conditions stipulated in G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 30.04.1994 consequently set aside the same as erroneous, illegal, arbitrary and declare the 1st respondent as not entitled for relief claimed under the said O.A. and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 15101 OF 2015 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 12.10.2012 passed in O.A. No.1542 of 2009 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 30668 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 and 3 to 5 herein to implement the order of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A.No.1542 of 2009 dated 1012-2012 subject to the result of Writ Petition IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner to file the accompanying Counter Affidavit in the above Writ Petition NO 11436 of 2015 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

2. HARSHA VARDHANA RAO C

3. GP FOR SERVICES I

4. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP)

The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

The order dated 12.10.2012 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, passed in O.A.No.1542 of 2009, directing the respondents therein to regularize the services of the applicant by name E.Bhagyalakshmi, daughter of E.Subrahamanyam, who worked as NMR Typist in Panchayat Raj Department, by taking into consideration G.O.Ms.No.50 Revenue (SER-IV) Department, dated 10.02.1995 which was issued for regularizing services of NMR Typists, who are working on daily wage basis in Prakasam District, is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. Heard Mr. Mattegunta Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel for ZPPs, MPPs & Gram Panchayats appearing for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I and Mr. Harsha Vardhana Rao.C, learned counsel appearing for respondents.

3. The parties will be referred as they are arrayed in O.A.No.1542 of 2009 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, for the sake of convenience.

4. The applicant by name E.Bhagyalakshmi, daughter of E.Subrahamanyam worked as NMR Typist on daily wage basis in Panchayat Raj Department in Prakasam District. She was appointed as NMR Typist on daily wage basis @ Rs.15 per day by the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Tarlupadu and she worked in the said capacity in Mandal Praja Parishad, Giddalur from the month of December, 1990 till the month of May, 1992. Thereafter, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.50 on 10.02.1995 to regularize the services of the daily wage workers, who worked as Typists, subject to the condition that they must have completed six months continuous service. However, the services of the applicant were not regularized in terms of the said G.O. Therefore, the applicant has approached the Tribunal by way of filing O.A.No.1542 of 2009. In the counter filed on behalf of the State before the Tribunal, the fact that the applicant worked on daily wage basis as Job Typist in the Mandal Praja Parishad, Giddalur, from the month of December, 1990 till the month of May, 1992 was admitted. However, it is pleaded that the State Government of Andhra Pradesh has framed a policy and issued G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994 and as per the said G.O. only a person, who has completed five years of continuous service without any break as on 25.11.1993 alone is entitled for regularization of service and as the applicant has not completed the said continuous service of five years without break as on 25.11.1993 that she is not entitled for regularization of service. But, the Tribunal found that G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 is not applicable to the case of the applicant and G.O.Ms.No.50 dated 10.02.1995 is applicable to her case and thereby directed the respondents in the O.A. to regularize the services of the applicant by taking into consideration the G.O.Ms.No.50 dated 10.02.1995, which was specifically issued for regularizing the services of the NMR Typists, who are working on daily wage basis in Prakasam District and pass appropriate orders within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order.

5. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the instant writ petition has been preferred by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Ongole of Prakasam District, challenging the legal validity of the impugned order of the Tribunal.

6. Reiterating the contentions raised in O.A.No.1542 of 2009 before the Tribunal, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would vehemently contend that the State Government of Andhra Pradesh has framed a policy and issued G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 to regularize the services of the daily wage workers, who have put up continuous service of five years without any break as on 25.11.1993 and the said G.O. was upheld by the Apex Court in A.Manjula Bhashini and others v. Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited and another1and as 1(2009) 8 SCC 431

the applicant did not put up continuous service of five years in terms of the said G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 that she is not entitled for regularization of service. He would contend that G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 is applicable to the case of the applicant and G.O.Ms.No.50 dated 10.02.1995 is not applicable to the case of the applicant and that the Tribunal grossly erred in allowing the O.A. of the applicant and directing the respondents to regularize her services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.50 dated 10.02.1995. Therefore, he would pray to allow the writ petition and to set- aside the impugned order of the Tribunal.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 is not applicable to the case of the applicant and it is only G.O.Ms.No.50 dated 10.02.1995 that is applicable to the case of the applicant. He would submit that G.O.Ms.No.50 dated 10.02.1995 clearly envisages that the services of the daily wage Typists working in Prakasam District shall be regularized, who have completed six months of continuous service as on the date of issuing the said G.O. on 10.02.1995. He submits that the said G.O.Ms.No.50 dated 10.02.1995 was also issued pursuant to the judgment of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in R.P.No.3496 of 87 and batch and in O.A.No.23735 of 91 and batch. He contends that as admittedly the applicant has completed six months of continuous service as daily wage Typist in Prakasam District that she is entitled for regularization of her services in terms of the said G.O.Ms.No.50 and that the Tribunal has rightly allowed her claim and issued the above direction. He submits that the impugned order of the Tribunal is perfectly sustainable under law and it does not suffer from any legal infirmity and thereby prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

8. We have carefully perused the material on record. It is significant to note that the fact that the applicant worked as daily wage Typist in Mandal Praja Parishad in Prakasam District from December 1990 to May 1992 i.e., for a period of one and a half years, is absolutely not in dispute. The said fact has been categorically and unequivocally admitted by the State both in the

Counter filed before the Tribunal and also in the present writ petition. In para No.3 of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, it is clearly stated that again the applicant was appointed as Job Typist in Mandal Praja Parishad, Giddalur, and that she worked from December 1990 to May 1992. Therefore, it is now evident that she worked on daily wage basis as Typist in Mandal Praja Parishad of Prakasam District for a period of one and a half years. As the State Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.50 dated 10.02.1995 to regularize the services of the daily wage Typists of Prakasam District, who have completed six months continuous service, the applicant is entitled for regularization of service in terms of the said G.O. Therefore, as rightly held by the Tribunal, G.O.Ms.No.212 is not applicable to the case of the applicant and it is G.O.Ms.No.50 that is applicable to the case of the applicant. So, she is entitled for regularization of her service in terms of the said G.O. Taking into consideration the said orders issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.50, the Tribunal has rightly allowed her application and issued directions for regularization of her services. Therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal is perfectly sustainable under law and it calls for no interference in this writ petition. We do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed.

9. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed, affirming the order of the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

Date: 30.03.2026 MDP