Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J.

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

"to issue a Writ Order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent in not regularizing services against Junior Assistant/Forest Beat Officer from the date on which I complete 5 years of service i.e., 1.3.1991 as per the G.O. Ms. No. 212 Finance and Planning Dept., dt 22.4.1994 as illegal arbitrary and in utter violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the G.O. Ms. No. 212 Finance and Planning Dept., dt 22.4.1994 and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Manjula Bhashini Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and other cases and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for regularization of services from 1.3.1991 with regular pay attached to the post with all consequential benefits and to grant such other or further orders......."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged as Technical Maistry assisting in the Range Office at Sileru in the office side by attending all ministerial works on par with other ministerial staff. He has completed 5 years of service as on the cutoff date i.e., on 25.11.1993. Keeping in view the Government Orders i.e., G.O. Ms. No. 117 Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (For.V) Department, dated 27.2.2009 the Principal Chief Conservators of Forests issued orders dated 9.10.2009 for extending Minimum Time Scale provided against vacancy of Forest Beat Officer. The said Minimum Time Scale is being enhanced as per Revised Pay scales. While passing the said orders for Minimum Time Scale details of first appointment, qualifications and availability of vacancy were all taken into account. On 29.10.2009 proceedings were issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Narsipatnam, granting minimum time scale of Rs. 4,595/--10,285/- in the category of Forest Beat Officer with D.A. to the petitioner. Thereafter, similarly situated persons who are granted MTS under G.O. Ms. No. 117 EFS&T (For.V) Department, dated 27.2.2009 have filed O.A. No. 6978 of 2013 and batch for granting increments, HRA, Additional HRA and other allowances and the same was allowed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and the same was confirmed by this Court. Accordingly, the colleagues of the petitioner were getting increments and other benefits referred to above.

It is further stated that the petitioner is continuing in service from 1.3.1986 continuously as per their record. As per G.O. Ms. No. 212 Finance & Planning Department, dated 22.4.1994 persons who complete 5 years of service on 25.11.1993 are to be regularized on fulfillment of certain conditions. Though the petitioner got 5 years of service as on the cutoff date due to the administrative reasons not conducting exercise periodically in this regard his services could not be regularized and as such he is continuing on consolidated pay basis for the last more than 35 years without any security and without receiving any scale attached to the post of FBO. As the petitioner has not getting any increments and benefits, he made a representation dated 3.7.2017 to the respondents for extending the said benefits to him. But the respondents have not taken any action till now. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents denying all the averments made in the petition and contended that G.O. Ms. No. 212 Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department dated 22.04.1994 is not applicable to the petitioner. in the said G.O. the Government has decided that the services of persons who worked continuously for a minimum period of 5 years and are continuing on 25.11.1993 be regularized by the appointing authorities. But the petitioner has not completed 5 years service as on 25.11.1993 and not working as on 25.11.1993. It is further stated that the Government in G.M. No. 4903/Sec.V/2014, dated 28.3.2017 has issued orders that the applicants in O.A. No. 6978/2013 only be granted HRA and annual grade increments in the time scale where in their pay was fixed w.e.f. 27.9.2013 and to extend the benefit to further pay revision made and time to time. Hence, the representation of the petitioner has been forwarded to the Conservator of Forests, Visakhapatnam for onward submission to the Prl. Cheif Conservator of Forests (HoFF) to take decision on the representation of the individual by the Government.

It is further stated that the petitioner originally engaged from 01.02.1986 under DET Non-Plan scheme and continued upto October, 1988. Later he has not rendered his services in the department. Subsequently he joined in the department from 01.09.1999 and continued till 03/2000 under World Bank Scheme later from 04/2001 to 03./2004, he rendered his services under NABARD-V, VII & VIII Schemes. Later from 4/2004 to 10/2004, 12/2004 to 03/2006 and 06/2006 to 01/2009 the petitioner rendered his services in the department under APCFM Scheme with intervals. As seen from the wage vouchers available in this office, the petitioner never rendered his service continuously for 5 years as on 25.11.1993 to enable him to draw the benefits under G.O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22.04.1994. If the petitioner completed 5 years service as on 25.11.1993 and in continuous service on 25.11.1993, the proposal would have been submitted to the Government for regularization of his services. The petitioner has never made any representation for regularization of his services from the date of issue of G.O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22.4.1994 to till date. Hence, in view of the above circumstances, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.

5. On hearing, it is to be noted that as per judgment of composite High Court of A.P. reported in Government of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, PR and RD Department, Hyderabad and others v. N. Venkaiah and others 2018 (4) ALT 6 (D.B.), wherein it was held that:

"(i) whether the persons employed on daily wage basis or nominal muster roll or consolidated pay or as contingent worker on full-time basis in different departments of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and its agencies/instrumentalities are entitled to be regularized in service on completion of 5 years, and

ii) Whether the amendments made in the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (for short "the 1994 Act") by Amendment Acts 3 and 27 of 1998 are ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution"

6. It is no doubt true that in a case of District Collector v. M.L. Singh (2009) 8 SCC 480 and again in A. Manjula Bhashini v. Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Women's Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited 2009 (5) ALT 1 (SC), wherein in para-35 it was held that:

"35. In Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. G.V.K. Girls High School (2000) 8 SCC 370, this Court answered in negative the question whether the Government could issue a G.O. and deny benefit of grant-in-aid to the school and amend the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 for denying the benefit of the judgment rendered by the High Court in favour of the respondent."

7. The Supreme Court categorically held that the conditions mentioned in G.O. Ms. No. 212 must be fulfilled. Be it noted that even in B. Srinivasulu v. Nellore Municipal Corporation1 the Supreme Court directed that the services of B. Srinivasulu and the others should be regularized with effect from the date of their completing five years continuous service, as was laid down by the Supreme Court in M.L. Singh (2009) 8 SCC 480 (supra). However, no reference was made to the later observation in M.L. Singh (2009) 8 SCC 480 (supra) to the effect that the other conditions laid down in G.O. Ms. No. 212 would have to be satisfied for the purpose of regularization.

8. A reliance on the judgment of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, more particularly, Para 43 thereof, which reads as under:

"43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of the court, which we have described as litigious employment in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates."

9. As already pointed out, when no regular exercise was ever undertaken in any Department to assess the vacancy position so as to immediately extend benefit to those covered by G.O. Ms. No. 212, it is not open to the State to now come forward and say that there were no vacancies as on the date that the employees in question completed five years in service, on or before 25.11.1993. A mere assertion in this regard is nothing short of an unsupported self-serving ipse dixit on the part of the State and its instrumentalities and cannot be accepted at face value. Further, the facts in some of the cases on hand clearly demonstrate that despite clear vacancies being available, no timely steps were taken. Further, when such employees were retained in service for decades together, the necessity to continue them as per the workload is manifest and clearly demonstrated, requiring no further evidence. In such a situation where the State and its instrumentalities are responsible for the situation where it cannot be assessed now as to whether Condition No. 5 in G.O. Ms. No. 212 stood fulfilled as on the date of completion of five years in service by the employees concerned, the benefit of doubt would invariably have to be given to the said employees and not to the State.

10. In view of the above foregoing discussion and in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court referred to above and upon perusing the entire material evidence on record, this Court is of the considered view that the concerned respondent authorities are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date on which he has completed 5 years service i.e., 01.03.1991 as per G.O. Ms. No. 212 Finance & Planning Department, dated 22.04.1994. Further, the respondents are directed to pay all the consequential benefits with regular pay attached to the post, in accordance with law, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.