CH. DURGA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

(2.) It is stated that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.330 Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Estt.IV) Department, dtd. 23/9/2011 according permission to the Commissioner of PR & RE for regularization of services of the candidates whose names were annexed to the said GO in terms of G.O.(P) No.112, dtd. 23/7/1997 from prospective date i.e., the date of issue of order and accordingly individual orders have been issued on 14/11/2011 by the District Panchayat Officer, Krishna, Machilipatnam regularizing the services of the petitioner as he is fully qualified and eligible for regularization and as there is a clear vacancy. However, the main grievance of the petitioner is that the action of the respondents in regularizing his services only from prospective date is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition and contended that the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj has directed the District Panchayat Officer, Krishna to regularize the services of the petitioner, who in turn issued proceedings vide Roc.No.3173/2010 Pts.8, dtd. 14/11/2011 regularizing the services of the petitioner and posted to A.Seetharampuram Gram Panchayat, Bapulapadu Mandal. It is further stated that the petitioner's appointment itself is irregular as he was appointed in a nonprovincialized post subsequent to the provincialization of the services of the employees appointed by the Village Sarpanchas. Only ratification on 23/9/2011 his post was provincialized and he was directed to regularize in a clear vacancy. The petitioner found regularization with effect from completion of service of 10 years as part time employee is not sustainable even for the purpose of pension. Therefore, considering all the facts the Government have issued G.O.ms.No.330 PR & RD (Estt-IV) Department, dtd. 23/9/2011 regularizing the services of the petitioner from prospective date i.e. the date of issue of orders. Hence, the service of the petitioner was regularized from the date of issue of orders. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.