Allowed

G.Sivannarayana v. The State of A.P

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Oct 2019WP/15719/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a writ petition filed for regularization of the petitioner's service. The High Court directed the respondents to regularize the petitioner's service retrospectively from July 23, 1997, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in B. Srinivasulu, instead of the impugned date of December 13, 2005.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent to regularize petitioner with effect from 23.07.1997 instead of 13.12.2005.

G.Sivannarayana Vs The State of A.P — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

SMT. JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.15719 OF 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to declare the petitioner as entitled to be regularized with effect from the date of his completion of 10 years i.e., 01.11.1992 as per G.O.(P) No.112, Finance (P.C III) Department, dated 23.07.1997 read with G.O.No.212 Finance Department, dated 22.04.1994 for the purpose of pay and pension.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for services appearing for respondents.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per G.O.(P) No.112, Finance (P.C III) Department, dated 23.07.1997, the petitioner is entitled for regularization from the time, when he completed 10 years of service. But his services are regularized with effect from 13.12.2005 instead of 23.07.1997 which is the date of the Government Order, coming into force and by which date, the petitioner completed his 12 years of service. He also relies on Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court

¶7

reported in B.Srinivasulu and others Vs Nellore Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh and others¹ , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that ‘the right of the appellants to seek regularization flows from the G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994

¶8

1 2015 SCC OnLine SC1797

¶9

¶10

and the appellants have been in service of the first respondent not only prior to the issuance of the said G.O., but even subsequent to the issue of G.O till that day’. The Supreme Court observing as such, held that ‘refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, is not justified’.

¶11

In this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner rendered 12 years of service by the date of G.O.(P) No.112, Finance (P.C III) Department, dated 23.07.1997 read with G.O.No.212 Finance Department, dated 22.04.1994 coming into force.

¶12

Hence, in view of the circumstances, there shall be direction to the respondents for regularization of the petitioner with effect from 23.07.1997, instead of 13.12.2005 in terms of G.O.(P) No.112, Finance (P.C III) Department, dated 23.07.1997 read with G.O.No.212 Finance Department, dated 22.04.1994

¶13

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶15

______________ T. RAJANI, J

¶16

Dated: 14.10.2019 MP

G.Sivannarayana v. The State of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Sivannarayana v. The State of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mobina Mohammed Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ch.v.v.S,Bapi Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Apstate Drda Empl Welfare Union and 2 Oth Vs Spl Chief Secty,P.Raj and Rd Dept and Anothe

Potnuru Venkata Ramana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ch.Suryanarayana Murthy, Vs The Commissioner Of Collegiate Education Ap

A.P. Srinivasulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh