Battu Devanand, J.

1. This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 11.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.25558 of 2017.

2. The parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition for convenience.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides and carefully perused the material available on record.

4. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

                  (i) The petitioner was appointed as adhoc lecturer in Chemistry in S.K.B.R. College, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, on 29.07.1983, in a clear aided vacancy. The management of the college have given usual breaks in his services from the period 1984 to 1990 and continued his services from 1990 and regularized his services with effect from 06.03.1998 under G.O.Ms.No.328 Education, dated 15.10.1997.

                  (ii) The petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent No.1 through the respondent No.4 seeking regularization of unaided service on notional basis for the purpose of seniority and pensionary benefits. As the said representation was kept pending before the respondent No.1, the petitioner filed W.P.No.20030 of 2014. Pending the writ petition, the respondent No.1 issued memo dated 13.08.2015 directing the respondent No.2 to examine the request of the petitioner for regularization of unaided service and to submit the report. Challenging the delay on behalf of the respondents in not considering the unaided service for the period 1983 to 1998, the petitioner filed writ petition in W.P.No.25558 of 2017.

                  (iii) The petitioner got retired from services on 20.09.2018, and limited his prayer to direct respondents to consider his case to regularize his unaided service for the period 1983 to 1998, only for the pensionary benefits, but not for any other purposes.

5. Case of the respondents:-

                  (i) Initially, the petitioner was appointed as a part time lecturer in Chemistry in the respondent No.4-College during 29.07.1983 to 05.03.1998 with break in services. The break in service period was condoned by the College Governing Body in its meeting held on 03.09.2012 and subsequently, his services were regularized vide G.O.Ms.No.328, Education, dated 15.10.1997 with prospective effect i.e,. from 06.03.1998, as such, the petitioner is not entitled for regularization of his unaided service on notional basis for the purpose of seniority and as well as the pension.

                  (ii) It is further contended that upon considering the representation made by the petitioner on 20.09.2012, the respondent No.2 rejected the same on 18.06.2015 on the ground that the petitioner worked during the period from 1983 to 1998 as part time lecturer and his services were regularized on 15.10.1997 and the monetary benefit is with prospective effect only, but not with retrospective effect. The claim of the petitioner is in violation of clause 10 of G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed rejoinder to the counter, enclosing an order copy of this Court passed in W.P.No.26243 of 2003, wherein the services of the petitioner therein were regularized as per the guidelines prescribed in G.OMs.NO.328, Edn., dated 15.10.1997 on fulfilment of certain conditions.

7. The learned single Judge of this Court after hearing both sides and on perusal of the material available on record, allowed the writ petition, by order, 11.04.2023 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his unaided service for the period 1983 to 1998 i.e., the date on which one post of lecturer fell vacant, only for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other consequential benefits.

8. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, dated 11.04.2023, the State preferred the present appeal.

9. Submissions of the learned Government Pleader for the appellant/respondents:-

                  (a) The case of the petitioner is different to that the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.26243 of 2003. In the case referred by the petitioner, the petitioner therein was appointed as an Assistant Lecturer in English in the year 1981 and the said post was admitted into Grant in Aid from 1993 onwards.

                  The petitioner therein was working against the said Grant in Aid post and when his case was considered for regularisation into the said post, he was initially regularised from the date of issuing proceeding i.e., from 1998 onwards. Hence, the learned Single Judge while allowing the said writ petition held that the petitioner was working against the Grant in Aid post and that is why his case was directed to be considered. Whereas, the petitioner was appointed as a part time lecturer in Chemistry on adhoc basis in the year 1983 and continued up to 05.03.1998 with break in service.

                  (b) Though the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition to the extent of considering the case of the petitioner for regularization of his unaided service for the period 1983 to 1998 i.e., the date on which one post of lecturer fell vacant, the order creates a bad precedent in law as there would be chances to the others to claim such a benefit which causes burden on the State Exchequer.

                  (c) Further, it is contended that the petitioner was entitled for regularization only as per the terms and conditions mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997. But, the petitioner cannot claim that his services have to be regularized retrospectively as was done in other cases and there was no provision to consider the case of the petitioner. Hence, prayed to set-aside the order, dated 11.04.2023 of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.2558 of 2017.

10. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent:-

                  (i) The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that this Court, by its order, dated 11.04.2023 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his encumbered service from 1983 to 1998. The said direction is solely for the purpose of pensionary benefits and explicitly excluded any other consequential benefits. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation, dated 15.05.2023 to the respondent- authorities to implement the orders of this Court. In response, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, A.P. initiated correspondence and sought reports from the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Rajamahendravaram and the President and Correspondent of S.K.B.R. College, Amalapuram.

                  (ii) In response to the Memo.No.63/AdminII/2022, dated 18.07.2023 of the Commissioner of College Education, the President and Correspondent of S.K.B.R. College, Amalapuram, submitted a report on 22.07.2023 wherein, it is clearly stated that an aided vacancy arose due to the demise of one Sri.G.Venkata Ratnam, a Lecturer in Chemistry, on 01.01.1989. It was further confirmed that as per the cadre strength of 1986, there were 14 posts, one of which became vacant due to the said demise. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education called for remarks from the RJD, Rajamahendravaram, regarding the report submitted by the college authorities and specifically enquired whether the petitioner had worked as an unaided lecturer against the aided post between 1983 and 1998 and requested a certificate to that effect. In response to the query, the RJD- Rajamahendravaram submitted his remarks vide Rc.No.1308/B2/2022, dated 02.09.2023 confirming that the petitioner had worked as an unaided lecturer against an aided vacancy with effect from 02.01.1989 onwards and that the post of an aided lecturer in Chemistry remained vacant against the period from 02.01.1989 to 05.03.1998.

                  (iii) It is pertinent to note that the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Higher Education, vide G.O.Ms.No.65, Education, dated 26.08.2025 specifically provided for consideration of services of unaided retired lecturers who worked under aided vacancies for pensionary benefits. The said G.O. further strengthens the petitioner’s claim. Despite having sufficient confirmations and specific directions of this Court, the respondent- authorities failed to implement the same, which constitutes a clear act of non- compliance and disregard for judicial pronouncements. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of the learned single Judge is in accordance with law and reasonable and as such, interference into the same is not warranted and sought to dismiss the writ appeal.

11. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered view, the following issues emerged for consideration:

                  Whether the writ petitioner is entitled for regularization of his unaided service for the period 1983 to 1998 i.e., the date on which one post of lecturer fell vacant, only for the purpose of pensionary benefits or not ?

12. Discussion, reasoning and finding:

                  (i) On careful perusal of the record and submissions made by the respective counsels, it appears that there is no dispute with regard to the admitted facts of the case. The only issue falls for consideration before this Court at present is that whether the petitioner is entitled for regularization of his services from 1983 to 1998 for pensionary benefits or not. When such request is not considered by the respondents, he filed W.P.No.25558 of 2017 and the said writ petition was allowed on 11.04.2023 directing the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner for regularization of his unaided service from 1983 to 1998 for the purpose of pensionary benefits. To consider the representation, dated 15.05.2023 submitted by the writ petitioner for implementation of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.25558 of 2017, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, sought report from the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Rajamahendravaram and the President and Correspondent of S.K.B.R. College, Amalapuram vide Memo No.63/Admin-II/2022, dated 18.07.2023. In response to the same, the Correspondent of S.K.B.R. College, Amalapuram, submitted a report on 22.07.2023 stating that an aided vacancy arose due to demise of one Sri G. Venkata Ratnam, a Lecturer in Chemistry, on 01.01.1989. It is further confirmed in the said report that as per the cadre strength of 1986, there were 14 posts, out of which one became vacant due to the said demise of Sri G. Venkata Ratnam. Subsequently, vide Memo No.63/Admin-II/2022, dated 14.08.2023, the Commissioner of College Education called for remarks from Regional Joint Director, Rajamahendravaram regarding the report submitted by the S.K.B.R. College. In reply to the same, the Regional Joint Director, Rajamahendravaram, submitted his report in Rc.No.1308/B2/2022, dated 02.09.2023, confirming that the writ petitioner had indeed worked as an unaided Lecturer against an aided vacancy with effect from 02.01.1989 onwards and that the post of an aided Lecturer in Chemistry remained vacant against the period from 02.01.1989 to 05.03.1998.

                  (ii) The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that despite the clear information given by way of reports submitted by the Correspondent of the S.K.B.R. College, Amalapuram and Regional Joint Director, Rajamahendravaram, the Commissioner of College Education has failed to issue any order for regularization of the writ petitioner in an unaided service for pensionary benefits.

                  (iii) The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the G.O.Ms.No.65, Higher Education (CE) Department, dated 26.08.2025 to substantiate his contention. The said Government Order specifically provides for the consideration of services of unaided retired Lecturers who worked under aided vacancies for pensionary benefits.

                  (iv) On careful perusal of the report of the Correspondent of S.K.B.R. College, Amalapuram, dated 22.07.2023 and report of the Regional Joint Director, Rajamahendravaram, dated 02.09.2023, submitted to the Commissioner of College Education, are clearly established that the writ petitioner worked as an unaided Lecturer against an aided vacancy with effect from 02.01.1989 onwards in the vacancy arose due to demise of Sri G. Venkata Ratnam, a Lecturer in Chemistry on 01.01.1989. Besides this, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.65, Higher Education (CE) Department, dated 26.08.2025, wherein it is specifically provided to consider the service of unaided retired Lecturers who worked under aided vacancies for pensionary benefits, it strengthened the writ petitioner’s claim to consider his case for regularization of his unaided service from 1989 to 1998 i.e., the date on which one post of Lecturer fell vacant.

                  (v) Though the learned Government Pleader appearing for appellants has raised several contentions against the claim of the writ petitioner, we did not find any valid and legal grounds to accept their contentions. The report of the Correspondent of S.K.B.R. College, Amalapuram, dated 22.07.2023 and report of the Regional Joint Director, Rajamahendravaram, dated 02.09.2023, proves that an aided vacancy arose from 02.01.1989 to 05.03.1998 during which the writ petitioner rendered services as Lecturer.

                  (vi) In view of the above admitted facts and in the light of the G.O.Ms.No.65, Higher Education (CE) Department, dated 26.08.2025 issued by the State Government, wherein, it is provided to consider the services of an unaided retired Lecturers who worked under aided vacancies for pensionary benefits, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petitioner is entitled for the relief sought in the writ petition and a learned single Judge of this Court has rightly considered his claim and allowed the writ petition with reasoned order. We did not find any reasons to interfere into the reasoned order passed by the learned single Judge. The appellants failed to make out any case, in facts and under law. Therefore, this appeal fails and it is liable to be dismissed.

13. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.