A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, comprising Justice Battu Devanand and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, has dismissed a writ appeal filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh, thereby upholding a learned Single Judge’s order directing the regularization of a Forest Department employee.
The judgment, delivered on October 6, 2025, in Writ Appeal No. 955/2025, affirmed that the employee, A. Sampath Kumar, was entitled to regularization as he had completed the requisite 5 years of service by the 25.11.1993 cut-off date stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994.
The appeal was filed by the State against the order dated 01.04.2025 in W.P(AT).No.271 of 2022.
Background of the Case
The original writ petition was filed by A. Sampath Kumar, who claimed he was appointed as a Technical Maistry on a daily wage basis on 09.08.1988 and continued his service thereafter, completing over 30 years.
The petitioner contended that he satisfied the conditions of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, for regularization, as he had completed five years of service by the cut-off date of 25.11.1993. He presented service certificates dated 07.04.1990 and 30.06.1994 as evidence of his continuous service from 09.08.1988.
The petitioner also noted that his name appeared at Sl.No.19 in a list prepared by the Forest Department itself, showing persons working on a daily wage/NMR/consolidated pay basis as of 25.11.1993. Despite representations, his services were not regularized, though he was extended a minimum time scale of pay under G.O.Rt.No.384, dated 20.07.2010.
The learned Single Judge, after considering the material, allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to regularize the petitioner’s services within two months.
Arguments in the Appeal
The State of Andhra Pradesh, as the appellant, filed a counter affidavit arguing that the petitioner was engaged as a Typist on a daily wage basis “as and when required” and that his first engagement was only on 08.01.1991. The State claimed he “worked afterwards with break in period of service” and only worked continuously from 01.07.1994, thus not fulfilling the 5-year continuous service requirement by the cut-off date.
The learned Government Pleader further contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered a rejection order passed by the authorities on 07.06.2019. It was also submitted that “in the year 1988, there is no computer operator post and the department also was not computerized.”
Counsel for the respondent (the employee) submitted that the service certificates dated 07.04.1990 and 30.06.1994 clearly proved his work from 09.08.1988. It was argued, “There is no dispute that these two certificates are attested by the concerned Divisional Forest Officers,” and the department “cannot dispute the genuineness of that certificates.” The respondent also relied on the department’s own list showing his start date as 09.08.1988.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Division Bench reviewed the findings of the learned Single Judge, who had observed that the respondent department did not deny the service certificates filed by the petitioner. The Single Judge found these certificates “clearly indicate a continuous period of service of the petitioner from 09.08.1988 to 30.06.1994.”
The Single Judge also held that the petitioner’s initial employment on 09.08.1988 was an “admitted fact,” evident from the department’s own list (Sl.No.19).
The Division Bench concurred with this analysis. The judgment noted, “On perusal of the statement of the list of the persons worked in the Forest Department as on 25.11.1993… it appears that the name of the petitioner was placed at Serial No.19. It is mentioned therein that the date from which the petitioner is working and length of continuous service is with effect from 09.08.1988.”
The Bench further observed that the respondents were “not disputing the statement and the certificates issued by the Forest Department officers.”
In light of this evidence, the Division Bench held: “In the light of the said documents, in our view there is no substance in the contention of the respondents that the petitioner worked in the Forest Department only from 08.01.1991.”
The Court concluded that the petitioner met the criteria for regularization, stating, “In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner is continuously working there and he has completed 5 years of service as on the cut-off date. Hence, he is entitled for regularization of service as directed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.”
Finding “no merits in this Writ Appeal,” the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the learned Single Judge. There was no order as to costs.
