STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. T.S.GOPALAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General II appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. A. Phani Bhushan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 8/writ petitioners.

(2.) This appeal is directed against an order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.4290 of 2020 directing the appellants to consider the case of the writ petitioners as having been regularized with effect from 25.11.1993 and calculate the pension and pensionary benefits on the said basis.

(3.) Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda submits that the writ petitioners No.1 to 8 were discontinued from the contingent work on attaining the age of 60 years on 31.07.2014, 25.03.2015, 19.07.2010, 30.06.2010, 19.07.2014, 30.06.2015, 27.11.2008 and 31.12.2016, respectively. He further submits that as the petitioners approached this Court after their superannuation, on the ground of delay itself, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed. It is further submitted that no opportunity was granted to the appellants to file counter-affidavit in the writ petition and therefore, the order under appeal is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that the learned single Judge did not record any factual finding as to whether the writ petitioners would be entitled for regularisation of service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994, from the cut-off date mentioned therein, which is 25.11.1993, and without such finding having been recorded, the learned single Judge directed the appellants to consider the case of the writ petitioners as having been regularized with effect from 25.11.1993 and to calculate the pension and pensionary benefits on the said basis. Mr. Vivekananda further submits that the reliance placed by the learned single Judge on paragraph 50 of the judgment in the case of Government of A.P. v. N. Venkaiah, reported in 2018 (4) ALD 590 (DB), is distinguishable inasmuch as all the employees in that case were regularized in service under while they were in service and they had sought the benefit of such regularization from earlier dates, while in the instant case, the writ petitioners were not regularized and they approached this Court after their superannuation.