http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5525 of 2007

PETITIONER: The Secretary to Govt. Agriculture & Cooperation Govt. of A.P. and Ors

RESPONDENT: K. Kesavulu

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/11/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & AFTAB ALAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL No.  5525          OF 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.21225 of 2005)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.

2.      Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a  Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing  the writ petition filed by the appellant. In the writ petition  correctness of order passed by the Andhra Pradesh  Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (In short the ’Tribunal’)  was questioned.   3.      Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Respondent was appointed as Watchman at the Seed  Stores, Pitchatoor, by proceedings dated 21.4.1980 on a  temporary basis. Initially he was getting Rs.290/- p.m.  Subsequently, the services of the respondent and eighteen  others were converted into regular last grade service by ROC  No.A3/3291/85 dated 1.3.1991. However, by subsequent  proceeding in G. O. Ms. No.98 dated 1.4.1999, the service of  the respondent was again regularized pursuant to the orders  of the Government in G.O.Ms No.212 dated 22.4.1994.  Consequently proceedings dated 8.4.1999 were issued  considering him as a regular employee w.e.f. 1.4.1999. As a  result, respondent was denied the benefit of regularisation into  last grade service w.e.f. 1.3.1991. The respondent filed O.A.  No.3051 of 2000 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal  seeking invalidation of the proceedings in G.O.Ms. No.98 dated  1.4.1999 and consequential proceedings dated 8.4.1999 and  for a declaration that he was entitled to be treated as a regular  employee in the last grade service w.e.f. 1.3.1993 with all  consequential benefits.

4.      By Order dated 4.8.2004, the Tribunal held that the  service of the respondent was regularized pursuant to the  order in G.O. Ms. No.98 dated 1.4.1999 and basing on order in  G.O.Ms No.9 of 1981 proceedings dated 1.3.1991 were issued  and his service stood converted into a regular last grade  service and the subsequent scheme of regularization issued in  G.O. Ms. No.212 dated 22.4.1994 would not deprive the  respondent of the benefits of earlier regularization. The order  was challenged before the High Court which, as noted above,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

dismissed the writ petition.

5.      In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the  appellant submitted that Notification dated 1.2.1991 inter alia  provided the following condition to be fulfilled: "Government have examined the issue  carefully and decided that the services of the  full time contingent employees appointed  before 1.2.1980 be converted into last grade  service after completion of 5 years subject to  fulfilling the conditions laid down in Govt.  Memo 1st  and 2nd." 6.      Admittedly, the respondent was appointed in April, 1980  and, therefore, was not entitled to the benefit flowing from the  G.O.Ms. 124 dated 22.2.1991. It was further pointed out that  the order by which the regularization was directed on 1.3.1991  referred to a wrong G.O. i.e. G.O.Ms. No.9 (F&P (FW.PRC VI)  Dept. dated 8.1.1981. The same related to regularization and  conversion into regular posts. Noticing the illegality in the  order of regularization cancellation was directed by order  dated 23.9.1991 wherein the correct G.O.Ms. i.e. 124 dated  22.2.1991 was referred to and it was clearly stated that the  concerned workman-respondent had not fulfilled the  conditions laid down in G.O. Ms. 124 (F & A Agri.IV) dated  21.2.1991. The regularization in 1999 was done pursuant to  G.O.Ms. No.98 dated 1.4.1999 which inter alia provided as  follows:

"Government     after   careful consideration  hereby accord permission for regularization of  the services of the following daily wage  employees working in Chittoor District against  the existing vacancies as indicated against  their names from the date of issue of orders  i.e. with prospective effect as they have fulfilled  all the conditions stipulated in G.O. Ms. No.  212, Finance and Planning (F.W.P.C.III)  Department dated 22.4.1994."

7.      This regularization was under another scheme. In any  event writ petition was filed in 2004. It is highlighted that the  1999 scheme stipulated a condition about the regular vacancy  and, therefore, regularization was done in 1999.  

8.      Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand  submitted before the Tribunal that it was clearly highlighted  that G.O.Ms. No.212 dated 22.4.1994 provided that  regularization of services of those who were working for five  years prior to November, 1993.   9.      The Tribunal held that the services of the respondent and  others were regularized under earlier orders, and, therefore,  G.O.Ms. No.98 dated 1.4.1999 cannot be applied to the case of  the respondent. 10.     It is to be noted that the order dated 23.9.1991 was  passed because the respondent and several others did not  fulfil the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms. No.124 (F&A) Agrl.V)  dated 1.2.1991. The condition which is relevant has already  been extracted above. Undisputedly, the concerned G.O.  related to persons who had completed five years of service  before 1.2.1990. Undisputedly the respondent was appointed  on 21.4.1990 and, therefore, he did not fulfil the condition. 11.     That being so, the question of his regularization did not  arise. After the order of regularization was passed the  discrepancy was noticed and was subsequently rectified. It is  not the case of the respondent that he was to be regularised in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

terms of G.O.Ms. No.124 dated 1.2.1991. The Tribunal and  the High Court clearly lost sight of this basic fact. That being  so, the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court are  indefensible and are set aside.

12.     The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.