Holding

The 1 March 1991 regularisation order was based on a wrong Government Order, the respondent did not meet its conditions, and therefore only the 1999 regularisation under G.O. Ms No.98 is valid.

Summary

The respondent, appointed as a temporary watchman on 21 April 1980, claimed that his services were regularised on 1 March 1991 under Government Order (G.O.) No.124 of 22 February 1991, which would entitle him to last‑grade regular service. The Court found that the 1 March 1991 order mistakenly relied on an earlier G.O. (No.9 of 8 January 1981) and was subsequently cancelled on 23 September 1991 because the respondent did not satisfy the condition of having five years of service before 1 February 1980. Consequently, the respondent was ineligible for the benefits of the 1991 regularisation. His services were later regularised on 1 April 1999 under G.O. Ms No.98, which operated under a different scheme and correctly applied the conditions. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal and High Court erred in treating the 1991 order as valid and set aside their judgments, confirming the 1999 regularisation as the proper one. The appeal was allowed and no costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether the respondent was entitled to regularisation as of 1 March 1991 under G.O. Ms No.124 dated 22 February 1991.
Whether the later regularisation order G.O. Ms No.98 dated 1 April 1999 applies to the respondent.
Whether the Tribunal and High Court erred in upholding the 1991 regularisation and rejecting the 1999 order.

Subjects

service regularisationgovernment ordertemporary appointmentwatchmaneligibility conditionAdministrative TribunalHigh CourtSupreme Court

Judgment

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURE & A
COOPERATION GOVERNMENT OF
ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.
v.
K.KESAVULU
' ) B
NOVEMBER 29, 2007

[DR. ARIJIT P ASAY AT AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.]

Service Law: Regularisation-Claim of-Services ofdaily wage c
employee converted into regular last grade service by proceedings
dated 1. 3.1991-Subsequently services regularized w. e.f 1. 4.1999, by
proceedings in G.O.Ms. No 98 of 1.4.1999-Benefits o,f earlier
-I regularization w.e.f 1.3.1991, claim of-Granted by courts below-
Held: Order by which regularization was directed on 1. 3.1991 was a D
wrong G. 0. which was subsequently rectified and correct G. O.Ms. was
referred to-However, employee did notfulfill the conditions laid down
therein and as such not entitled to the benefit flowing from the
G.O.Ms.-Services were regularised in 1999 pursuant to G.0.Ms.
No. 98of1. 4.1999-Thus, Orders ofCourt below indefensible and set E
aside.

Respondent was appointed as watchman on temporary basis
by proceedings dated 21.4.1980. Pursuant to G.O.Ms. 9 dated
r 8.1.1981 by proceedings dated 1.3.1991, services ofrespondent and
others were converted into regular last grade service. However, by F
proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 1.4.1999, services of the
respondent was again regularized pursuant to G.O.Ms. No.212
dated 22.4.1994. Proceedings dated 8.4.1999 were issued considering
him as regular employee w.e.f. 1.4.1999. Aggrieved, respondent
sought regularization into last grade service w.e.f. 1.3.1991 and G
• invalidation of proceedings in G.O.Ms. No.98dated1.4.1999 and
proceedings dated 8.4.1999. Tribunal held that that the subsequent
scheme ofregularization issued in G.O.Ms. No.212 dated 22.4.1994
would not deprive the respondent of the benefits of earlier
689 H
690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A regularization. It held that the services of the respondent and others
were regularized under earlier orders, and, therefore, G.O.Ms.
No.98dated1.4.1999 could not be applied to the respondent's case.
Appellants filed writ petition challenging the order and the same was
dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
i
B Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The Order by which the regularization was directed
on 1.3.1991 referred to a wrong G.O. i.e. G.O.Ms. No.9 (F&P
(FW.PRC VI) Dept. dated 8.1.1981. The same related to
c regularization and conversion into regular posts. Noticing the
illegality in the order of regularization cancellation was directed by
order dated 23.9.1991 wherein the correct G.O.Ms. i.e. 124 dated
22.2.1991 was referred to and it was clearly stated that the
respondent had not fulfilled the conditions laid down in G.O. Ms.
D 124 (F & A Agri.IV) dated 22.2.1991 and as such was not entitled to
the benefit flowing from the said G.O.Ms. The concerned G.O.
related to persons who had completed five years of service before
1.2.1980. Respondent was appointed on 21.4.1980 and, therefore,
he did not fulfil the condition. The regularization in 1999 was done
E pursuant to G.O.Ms. No.98 dated 1.4.1999. This regularization was
under another scheme. [Paras 6, 7 and 10) [692-C, D, E; 693-B, CJ

1.2. The question of his regularization did not arise. It is not
the case of the respondent that he was to be regularised in terms of
G.O.Ms. No.124 dated 22.2.1991. The Tribunal and the High Court
F clearly lost sight of this basic fact. That being so, the orders of the
Tribunal and the High Court are indefensible and are set aside.
[Para 11) [693-D, E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5525 of
G 2007.
From the Final Order dated 26.10.2004 of the High Court of
Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No. 19374/2004.
D. Bharathi Reddy for the Appellants.
H R. Santhan Krishnan, K. Radha Rani, Praveen K. Pandey, P. Vijaya
{
I
SECRETARYTOGOVT.AGRl.&COOPERATIONGOVT. 691
OF ANDHRAPRADESHv.K.KESAVULU [PASAYAT,J.]
~

Kumar and D. Mahesh Babu for the Respondent. A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench
) B
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by
the appellant. In the writ petition correctness of order passed by the
Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (in short the
'Tribunal') was questioned.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: c
Respondent was appointed as Watchman at the Seed Stores,
Pitchatoor, by proceedings dated 21.4.1980 on a temporary basis. Initially
he was getting Rs.290/-p.m. Subsequently, the services of the respondent
--4 and eighteen others were converted into regular last grade service by ROC
D
J No.A3/3291/85 dated 1.3.1991. However, by subsequent proceeding
in G. 0. Ms. No.98 dated 1.4.1999, the service of the respondent was
again regularized pursuant to the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms
No.212 dated 22.4.1994. Consequently proceedings dated 8.4.1999
were issued considering him as a regular employee w.e.f. 1.4.1999. As a
result, respondent was denied the benefit of regularisation into last grade E
service w.e.f. 1.3.1991. The respondent filed O.A. No.3051 of 2000
before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal seeking invalidation of the
proceedings in G.O.Ms. No.98 dated l.4.1999 and consequential
-- 1
proceedings dated 8.4.1999 and for a declaration that he was entitled to
be treated as a regular employee in the last grade service w.e.f. 1.3 .1991 F
with all consequential benefits.
4. By Order dated 4.8.2004, the Tribunal held that the service of
the respondent was regularized pursuant to the order in G.O. Ms. No.98
dated 1.4.1999 and basing on order in G.O.Ms No.9 of 1981 G
"-..... proceedings dated 1.3.1991 were issued and his service stood converted
into a regular last grade service- and the subsequent scheme of
regularization issued in G.O. Ms. No.212 dated 22.4.1994 would not

- deprive the respondent of the benefits of earlier regularization. The order
was challenged before the High Court which, as noted above, dismissed H
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 12 S.C.R.

A the writ petition.
5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that Notification dated 1.2.1991 inter alia provided the following
condition to be fulfilled:
B "Government have examined the issue carefully and decided
I-
that the services of the full time contingent employees appointed
before 1.2.1980 be converted into last grade service after
completion of 5 years subject to fulfilling the conditions laid down
in Govt. Memo 1st and 2nd."
c 6. Admittedly, the respondent was appointed in April, 1980 and,
therefore, was not entitled to the benefit flowing from the G.O.Ms. 124
dated 22.2.1991. It was further pointed out that the order by which the
regularization was directed on 1.3.1991 referred to a wrong G.O. i.e.
D G.O.Ms. No.9 (F&P (FW.PRC VI) Dept. dated 8.1.1981. The same
related to regularization and conversion into regular posts. Noticing the
illegality in the order of regularization cancellation was directed by order
dated 23.9.1991 wherein the correct G.O.Ms. i.e. 124 dated 22.2.1991
was referred to and it was clearly stated that the concerned workman-
respondent had not fulfilled the conditions laid down in G.O. Ms. 124 (F
E & A Agri.IV) dated 22.2.1991. The regularization in 1999 was done
pursuant to G.O.Ms. No.98 dated 1.4.1999 which inter alia provided as
follows:
"Government after careful consideration hereby accord permission
F for regularization of the services of the following daily wage
employees working in Chittoor District against the existing
vacancies as indicated against their names from the date of issue
of orders i.e. with prospective effect as they have fulfilled all the
conditions stipulated in G.O. Ms. No. 212, Finance and Planning
(F.W.P.C.III) Department dated 22.4.1994."
G
7. This regularization was under another scheme. In any event writ ~
petition was filed in 2004. It is highlighted that the 1999 scheme stipulated
a condition about the regular vacancy and, therefore, regularization was
done in 1999.
H
f SECRETARYTOGOVT.AGRI.&COOPERATIONGOVT. 693
OF ANDHRAPRADESHv.K.KESAVULU (PASAYAT,J.]
8. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted A
before the Tribunal that it was clearly highlighted that G.O.Ms. No.212
dated 22.4.1994 provided that regularization of services of those who
were working for five years prior to November, 1993.
9. The Tribunal held that the services of the respondent and others B
were regularized under earlier orders, and, therefore, G.O.Ms. No.98
dated 1.4.1999 cannot be applied to the case of the respondent.
I 0. It is to be noted that the order dated 23. 9.1991 was passed
because the respondent and several others did not fulfil the conditions laid
down in G.O.Ms. No.124 (F&A) Agrl.V) dated 22.2.1991. The C
condition which is relevant has already been extracted above.
Undisputedly, the concerned G.O. related to persons who had completed
five years of service before 1.2.1980. Undisputedly the respondent was
appointed on 21.4.1980 and, therefore, he did not fulfil the condition.

I
11. That being so, the question of his regularization did not arise. D
After the order of regularization was passed the discrepancy was noticed
and was subsequently rectified. It is not the case of the respondent that
he was to be regularised in terms ofG.O.Ms. No.124 dated 22.2.1991.
The Tribunal and the High Court clearly lost sight of this basic fact. That
being so, the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court are indefensible E
and are set aside.
12. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
N.J. Appeal allowed.