Judgment : V. Eswaraiah, J. This writ petition is filed by the Commissioner of Gudivada Municipality, Krishna District, assailing the order dated 13.6.2011 in O.A. No. 5463 of 2011 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hydrabad (for short the Tribunal). The Original Application filed by the first respondent is allowed by the Tribunal directing the respondents therein to regularise the services of the applicant/first respondent notionally w.e.f. 25.11.1993 as per G.O.Ms.No. 212 dated 22.4.1994. The writ petitioner is the third respondent in the O.A. 2. This Court while issuing notice before admission by order dated 17.2.2012 granted interim suspension. The first respondent filed a vacate petition in W.V.M.P. No. 1498 of 2012 to vacate the said interim order; however, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the first respondent herein was appointed as Part Time Night Watchman by the writ petitioner vide proceedings in ROC No. C3/1994/81 dated 18.2.1982 on a monthly remuneration of Rs.60/-and he claims that he has been in continuous service, and worked for more than 10 years as Part-time Night Watchman as on 25.11.1993 and entitled for regularisation of his services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance (PC.III) Department dated 22.4.1994 and G.O.(P) No.112 dated 23.7.1997. Proposals were submitted for regularisation of his services through the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration and accordingly, the Government issued orders in G.O.Rt No. 1156 dated 12.10.2010 according permission to the third respondent herein to regularise the services of the first respondent herein in the post of Public Health Worker in terms of G.O. (P) No. 112 dated 23.7.1997 from the prospective date i.e., date of issue of orders by the competent appointing authority, subject to the condition that the said vacancy is clear, regular and continued from time to time and no senior eligible person is overlooked/omitted. Pursuant to the same, the third respondent herein issued proceedings in Roc.No.7091/2002-M2 dated 22.10.2010 according permission to the writ petitioner-Commissioner, Gudivada Municipality to regularise the services of the first respondent in the post of Public Health Worker subject to the conditions stipulated in G.O.(P) No. 112 Finance (PC.III) Department dt 23.7.1997. Consequently, the writ petitioner issued proceedings in Roc No. 4598/2002-C1 dated 19.11.2010 appointing the first respondent as Public Health Worker on temporary basis. 4. Consequently, the writ petitioner issued proceedings in Roc No. 4598/2002-C1 dated 19.11.2010 appointing the first respondent as Public Health Worker on temporary basis. 4. Aggrieved by the said action, the first respondent filed O.A. No. 5463 of 2011 seeking a direction to the respondents to regularise his services from the date of his initial appointment and pay all the monetary and service benefits in terms of judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 359 of 2007 dated 2.11.2010. On consideration of the matter, the Tribunal by means of the impugned order dated 13.6.2011 allowed the said Original Application. The operative portion of the said order reads as under; “In the present case also the applicant has completed 5 years of service by the cut off date. In these circumstances, this O.A. is also allowed. The respondents are directed to regularise the services of the applicant w.e.f. 25.11.1993 as per G.O.Ms No. 212. However, the applicant is not eligible for arrears of pay and he is eligible only for notional fixation of pay.” 5. Questioning the said order, the Commissioner, Gudivada Municipality, Gudivada, filed the present writ petition contending that the first respondent is entitled to regularisation only from the date of issuance of the order of regularisation dated 19.11.2010 and not with retrospective effect i.e., 25.11.1993. 6. The Governor of Andhra Pradesh, promulgated “Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Ordinance, 1993, which was published in the State Gazette on 25.11.1993. The said Ordinance was replaced by the A.P. (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (Act 2 of 1994), which was enforced with effect from 25.11.1993. The said Ordinance was replaced by the A.P. (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (Act 2 of 1994), which was enforced with effect from 25.11.1993. The said Act was enacted with objects as “(a) totally banning such appointments in the institutions covered by legislation; (b) imposing stringent penalties for making appointments by public servants on violation of the law; (c) to protect public servants from being held for contempt for non-compliance of the orders of Tribunal or High Court and also for abatement of pending cases claiming regularization of services which are already filed before the courts of law by making a suitable provisions therefor; and (d) to protect the interests of candidates registered with Employment Exchange, the reservation rights of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes, the rights of the existing employees who are recruited through proper channel and the functions of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, District Selection Committees and other Selection Committees constituted by the Government. The legislation will prevent further deterioration of finances of the State and at the same time conserve the resources for the welfare and developmental activities." 7. As per Section 7 of the Act, 1994, no daily wage employees and temporary appointees are entitled for regularization. After enacting the said Act, 1994, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Ms.No. 212 dated 22.4.1994 prescribing the eligibility for regularization of the services of those employed on daily wages or nominal muster roll or consolidated pay subject to the condition that such persons had worked continuously for a minimum period of five years and were continuing as on 25.11.1993, subject to the following conditions; “1) The persons appointed should possess the qualifications prescribed as per rules in force as on the date from which his/her services have to be regularised. 2) They should be within the age limits as on the date of appointment as NMR/Daily wage employee. 3) The rule of reservation wherever applicable will be followed and back-log will be setoff against future vacancies. 4) Sponsoring of candidates from Employment Exchange is relaxed. 5) Absorption shall be against clear vacancies of posts considered necessary to be continued as per work-load excluding the vacancies already notified to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission / District Selection Committee. 3) The rule of reservation wherever applicable will be followed and back-log will be setoff against future vacancies. 4) Sponsoring of candidates from Employment Exchange is relaxed. 5) Absorption shall be against clear vacancies of posts considered necessary to be continued as per work-load excluding the vacancies already notified to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission / District Selection Committee. 6) In the case of Work charged Establishment, where there will be no clear vacancies, because of the fact that the expenditure on Work charged is at a fixed percentage of P.S. charges and as soon as the work is over, the services of work charged establishment will have to be terminated, they shall be adjusted in the other departments, District Offices provided there are clear vacancies of last Grade Service." 8. Number of persons who were employed on daily wages or nominal muster rolls or consolidated pay but did not complete 5 years as on 25.11.1993, have challenged the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No. 212 dated 24.4.1994 by filing Original Applications before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and writ petitions before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court, allowed the batch of writ petitions holding that all persons employed on daily wages or nominal muster roll or contract basis are entitled to be considered for regularization on completion of five years. The Division Bench, upheld the said order of the learned single Judge, with the modification that daily wagers, etc would be entitled to be considered for regularization with effect from the date of completion of 5 years continuous service. Against the said orders of the Division Bench, the State Government carried the matter in appeal to Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition and the Supreme Court by its Judgment in DISTRICT COLLECTOR/CHAIRMAN Vs M.L. SINGH (2009) 8 SCC 480 ) disposed of the appeal, the operative portion is reproduced as under; "We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. These matters relate to regularisation and payment of wages to the respondents who were employed on daily wage basis. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court, while affirming with modification the order passed by the learned Single Judge has directed that all employees who have completed five years of continuous service should be considered for regularization in accordance with the terms of G.O.Ms. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court, while affirming with modification the order passed by the learned Single Judge has directed that all employees who have completed five years of continuous service should be considered for regularization in accordance with the terms of G.O.Ms. No.212, dated April 22, 1994 and that they should be paid their wages at par with the wages paid to the permanent employees of that category. As regards payment of wages there is no dispute between the parties that the same have to be paid from the date of regularization. Insofar as regularization is concerned, we are of the view that the High Court has rightly directed that on the basis of the Notification G.O. Ms. No. 212, the respondent employees shall be regularized with effect from the date or dates, they completed five years continuous service. It is however made clear that the other condition laid down in the said G.O.Ms. No. 212 will have to be satisfied for the purpose of regularisation.” 9. The part time employees, who were not covered by Government Order dated 22.4.1994 also approached the Tribunal and High Court claiming regularization of their services. By an interlocutory order dated 25.4.1997, the High Court directed that a scheme be framed for regularization of their services. The State Government implemented the orders of the High Court and issued G.O.(P) No.112 dated 23.7.1997 for regularization of part time employees who had worked continuously for a minimum period of 10 years and were continuing on 25.11.1993 subject to the following conditions:- 1. "Absorption shall be against clear vacancies of posts considered necessary to be continued as per work-load excluding the vacancies already notified to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission or as the case may be, the District Selection Committee. 2. The persons appointed should possess the qualifications prescribed as per rules in force as on the date from which his or her services have to be regularised. 3. The person should be within the age limit as on the date of appointment as part-time employee. 4. The Rule of Reservation wherever applicable will be followed and back-log will be set off against future vacancies. 5. The sponsoring of candidate from Employment Exchange is relaxed. 6. 3. The person should be within the age limit as on the date of appointment as part-time employee. 4. The Rule of Reservation wherever applicable will be followed and back-log will be set off against future vacancies. 5. The sponsoring of candidate from Employment Exchange is relaxed. 6. If there are two candidates, one part-time and the second one a full-time employee (Daily Wage employee) of any category or name and there exists only one vacancy, the senior most between the two in terms of continuous service already rendered prior to 25-11-1993 treating two years of part-time service as one year of full-time service, relative seniority will be calculated and regularization will be suggested for the senior among the two accordingly. 7. The regularization of services of full-time employee already made in terms of G.O.Ms. No.212, Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dt.22-4-1994 will not be reopened for giving effect to the present order." 10. Thereafter, Act 2 of 1994 was amended by Act 3 of 1998 viz., ”Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) (Amendment) Act, 1998”. Section 7 of the principal Act 2 of 1994 was amended by inserting the following proviso before the first proviso; “Provided that the services of the person who worked on daily wage/NMR/consolidated pay/contingent worker on full time basis continuously for a minimum period of five years and is continuing as such on the date of the commencement of the Act shall be regularized in accordance with the scheme formulated in G.O.Ms.No. 212 Finance and Planning (FW.PC.II) Department dated 22.4.1994: Provided further that the services of a person who worked on part time basis continuously for a minimum period of ten years and is continuing as such on the date of the commencement of this Act shall be regularized in accordance with the scheme formulated in G.O.(P) No. 112 Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department dated 23.7.1997.” 11. The Act 2 of 1994 was again amended by Act 27 of 1998 substituting the first proviso to Section 7 of the principal Act, which reads as under: “Provided that the services of those persons continuing as on the 25th November, 1993 having completed a continuous minimum period of five years of service on or before 25th November, 1993 either on daily wage, or nominal muster roll, or consolidated pay or as a contingent worker on full time basis, shall be regularised in substantive vacancies, if they were otherwise qualified fulfilling the other conditions stipulated in the scheme formulated in G.O.Ms. No. 212, Finance and Planning (FW.PC. III) Department, dated the 22nd April, 1994.” 12. The Supreme Court in A. MANJULA BHASHINI AND OTHERS Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH WOMEN’S COOPERATIVE FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER (2009) 8 SCC 431 )considered effects of the amendments and the claims of the daily wage employees for their regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 212 dated 22.4.1994, holding that daily wage employees who have completed 5 years of regular service on or before 25.11.1993 and working as on 25.11.1993, are only entitled for regularization. 13. The Act,1994 as amended vide Act 27 of 1998 was upheld by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in A MANJULA BHASHINI case (cited supra) holding that it cannot be said that the amendments made in Act 2 of 1994 would nullify or over-ride the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.L. SINGH case (cited supra). When the Hon’ble Supreme Court decided the M.L. SINGH case, Amending Act 27 of 1998 was not the subject matter in the said case and the Supreme Court did not consider the effect of amendment with regard to the entitlement of the daily wage workers who have completed 5 years of service on or before 25.11.1993 and continuing as on that date. In the said case, the Supreme Court while examining the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court did not consider the background in which the Act, 1994 was enacted, mischief sought to be remedied by it and various provisions contained therein including Section 7 whereby it was made clear that no person employed on daily wage or on temporary basis and continuing as such on the date of commencement of the Act shall have or shall ever be deemed to have the right to claim regularization of service and his/her services shall be liable to be terminated at any time without any notice and without assigning any reason. 14. In A MANJULA BHASHINI case, the Supreme Court held that as per G.O.Ms.No. 212 dated 22.4.1994 such persons who have worked continuously for a minimum period of five years on or before 25.11.1993 and are continuing as on that date, alone are entitled to be considered for regularization in view of the Amendment Act 3 of 1998 and Amendment Act 27 of 1998. After considering various judgments including the judgment in M.L.SINGH, the Supreme Court observed that in none of those cases, the Supreme Court considered an issue akin to the one examined in the case of A.MANJULA BHASHINI and therefore the proposition of law laid down in referred cases cannot be relied upon for entertaining the claim of daily wage employees for regularization irrespective of the fact that they may not have completed 5 years continuous service on or before 25.11.1993. In that view of the matter, it was held that the amendments made in the 1994 Act by Act 3 of 1998 and Act 27 of 1998, do not have the effect of nullifying or overriding the judgment in M.L. SINGH case and further held that policy of regularization contained in the first proviso to Section 7 inserted by Act 27 of 1998 is one time measure intended to benefit only those daily wage employees who have completed 5 years continuous service on or before 25.11.1993 and employees who completed 5 years service after 25.11.1993 cannot claim regularization. Accordingly, it was held that the daily wage employees and others who are covered by Section 7 of 1994 Act as amended by Act 27 of 1998 and whose services have not been regularized so far shall be entitled to be considered for regularization and their service shall be regularized subject to fulfillment of conditions enumerated in G.O.Ms.No. 212 dated 22.4.1994. As per condition no.1 of G.O.Ms No. 212 dated 22.4.1994 and condition No.2 of G.O.(P) No. 112 dated 23.7.1997 the persons who worked continuously for a minimum period of 5/10 years respectively on or before 25.11.1993 alone are entitled to be regularized by the appointing authority if they possess the qualification prescribed as per the rules as on the date of the orders regularizing their services. That the persons appointed should possess the qualifications prescribed as per the rules in force as on the date on which his/her service is to be regularized. That means, even though persons have completed 5 years minimum service as on or before 25.11.1993, the qualification acquired subsequently by them for regularization, can be taken into account as on the date of regularization. The regularization shall only be from the date on which the regularization is considered by passing appropriate orders. 15. The regularization of the services of the persons who have completed 5 years of continuous service before 25.11.1993 depends upon the fulfillment of various conditions viz., there shall be clear vacancy for absorption of the post; requisite qualifications as on the date of passing the orders of regularization and subject to rule of reservation etc. The absorption or regularization cannot be with a retrospective effect i.e., 25.11.1993 but as per the scheme prescribed under the Act in G.O.Ms.No.212 which provides the qualification and conditions for their entitlement of regularization, therefore, the Supreme Court held that the daily wage employees who are covered by G.O.Ms No.212 dated 22.4.1994 as amended by Act 27 of 1998 substituting first proviso to Section 7 of Act 1994, are entitled to be considered for regularization of their services subject to fulfillment of conditions enumerated in G O Ms.No.212 dated 22.4.1994. The Supreme Court in A MANJULA BHASHINI case directed the Government, its officers and agencies/instrumentalities of the State to complete the exercise for regularization of the services of the eligible employees but never held that they are entitled for regularization with effect from 25.11.1993 irrespective of the date of passing regularization orders. The first respondent also did not question the Government orders in G.O.Rt.No. 1156 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (G2) Department dated 12.10.2010 and the consequential orders. The first respondent who worked as part time worker is entitled for his regularization from the future date i.e., date of issuance of the orders regularizing his services by the writ petitioner vide proceedings in R.O.C. No. 4598/2002/C1 dated 19.11.2010. 16. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the regularization of the daily wage employees cannot be made with retrospective effect, but they are entitled to be considered as per the scheme of the Act in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.4.1994 and G.O.P No. 112 dated 23.7.1997 for regularization from the date of issuance of the regularization order but not with retrospective effect i.e., from 25.11.1993. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is hereby set aside and the writ petition is allowed holding that the first respondent is entitled for regularization of his services from the date of issuance of the regularization order i.e., proceedings in R.O.C. No. 4598/2002/C1 dated 19.11.2010 but not with retrospective effect i.e., from 25.11.1993. No costs.