HARIHARAN Vs. BAJI SHAHEED KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ) The respondents herein who have been working as Supervisors in Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority on consolidated pay filed W.P. No.12618 of 1996 seeking regularization of their services in the existing vacancies from the date of completion of five years of service in terms of G.O.Ms. No.212, Finance and Planning, dated 22-4-1994. By the judgment dated 15-10-1997, a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent (Principal Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department) to accord permission to the 2nd respondent to regularize the services of the petitioners and to pay appropriate pay scales within two months from the date of receipt of the order. In giving such direction, the learned Single Judge relied on G.O.Ms. No.212, dated 22-4-1994. The learned Single Judge interpreted the G.O. to hold that it is not necessary to have five years of continuous service prior to 25-11-1993, but, it is sufficient if they were in service on that date. The wording in the G.O. 212 is - "service of such persons who worked continuously for an earlier period of five years and are continuing on 25-11-1993". Certain other conditions are also stipulated in the G.O., such as possession of prescribed qualifications for holding the post. W.A. No.720 of 1998 filed against the said judgment was dismissed for non-prosecution on 17-4-1998 after recording the representation of the Govt. Pleader that in view of the Supreme Court's judgment, he was not desirous of proceeding with the appeal further. While so, the State Legislature amended the A.P. Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure Act - Act 27 of 1998. A proviso was added to Section 7 of the Act which reads as follows:

(2.) Thus, the primary condition for regularization was recast by employing suitable language to avoid the interpretation placed by the learned single Judge. Section 7-A purports to lay down that no Court shall enforce a decree or order by directing the Government or other authority for regularization of services. Further by a non-ohstante provision, it was ordained under sab-section (1) of Sec. 7-A that no person shall claim regularisation under the proviso to Section 7 as introduced by the earlier Act, namely, A.P. Act No.3 of 1998, notwithstanding any judgment or decree of the Court or Tribunal or any Government Order. After this Act came into force, the claim of the petitioners for regularization was considered and rejected on the ground that the statutory precondition has not been satisfied inasmuch as the petitioners did not complete five years of service as on 25-11-1993. It was also observed that the writ petitioners did not fulfill the educational qualifications.

(3.) Complaining of violation of the order of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.12618 of 1996, Contempt Case No.354 of 1998 was filed. In the contempt case, the learned single Judge held that the order dated 22-9-1998 passed by the Government refusing regularization was contrary to the judgment in W.P.No.12618 of 1996 which had become final and the fact that the decision which the learned single Judge relied upon was set aside in another writ appeal will not come to the rescue of the respondents to ignore that judgment. The learned single Judge having noted that the respondents ought to have implemented the orders in the writ petition and regularized the services, however, directed the respondents to reconsider the entire matter afresh in the light of the judgment in W.P. No.12618 of 1996 within eight weeks. Contempt Case was disposed of accordingly. It is against this order, the present writ appeal is filed.