AMMANNA BABU Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL WALAMTARI HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very short proposition arises for our consideration in this Writ Petition whether the petitioners are entitled to be regularised in the service of the 1st respondent-WALAMTARI on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22-4-1994. The said G.O., supersedes all previous orders on the subject and keeping in view the directions contained in the Judgment of the Supreme Court in C.A.No.2979/92 and batch dated 12-8-1992, the Government have formulated a Scheme for regularisation of the services of the persons appointed on daily wages/NMR's or on consolidated pay and are continuing on the date of commencement of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act (for short 'the Act')- The Government accordingly decided that the services of such persons who worked continuously for a minimum period of five years and were continuing on 25-11-1993 be regularised by the appointing authorities subject to fulfilment of the following conditions:

(2.) Particulars of the date of appointment of 16 petitioners before us have been given in the affidavit filed onbehalf of the petitioners and none of the petitioners appear to have completed five years as on 25-11-1993. However, the learned Counsel for petitioners emphasizes that 25-11-1993 should not be considered as the cut-off date. It becomes evident from the careful perusal of the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-4-1994 that 25-11-1993 was not tobe treated as a cut-off date but any one who completed five years of service even after 25-11-1993 was entitled to be given the advantage of the aforesaid G.O. This proposition was vehemently opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) In W.P.Nos.28572 and 29343 of 1995, dated 31-7-1996 (unreported judgment) the same question fell for consideration of this High Court and the learned single Judge expressed his inability to accept the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the University that the phrase "persons who worked continuously for a minimum period of five years and are continuing on 25-11-1993" and a further submission that since the petitioners had not worked for five years as on 25-11-1993, they were not entitled to regularisation, made the following observations: