ORDER Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. 1. The present writ petition is filed assailing the action of the respondents in not regularising the services of the petitioner as per the orders of this Court dated 29.09.2008 in W.P. No. 21567/1999 and also in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 212, Finance & Planning (F.W.P.C.-111) Department, dated 22.04.1994. The petitioner has also sought for a consequential direction to have his services regularised as LPG Mechanic in the 2nd respondent Corporation. The facts in brief are that the petitioner, having possessed ITI qualification, on 25.11.1998 (sic. 1988), was appointed Mechanic at LPG Centre, Palvancha, which belongs to the 2nd respondent Corporation, and that he has been working in the 2nd respondent Corporation with a two-day artificial break for every 89 days. In 1995 the petitioner was transferred to another Centre at Kothagudem; and again in 1996 from Kothagudem to Visakhapatnam. In all, the petitioner has put in 22 years of service, as a result of which, the petitioner was treated as a regular employee and was given a rise in daily wages from ` 65/- to `71.50 ps from 01.07.1996. 2. In course of time, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated 22.04.1994 laying down the policy of regularising the services of daily wage employees who have worked for 5 years, subject to certain conditions. Though the petitioner had represented to the authorities concerned to consider his case in the light of the said G.O., when they did not respond, he filed W.P. No. 9555/1997 assailing the said inaction. This Court through its order dated 24.02.1998 directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's case in three months. The respondent authorities, however, on such consideration, rejected the case of the petitioner through an order dated 09.07.1999, holding that he did not complete 5 years of service as on 25.11.1993. This rejection had constrained the petitioner to approach this Court once again by filing W.P. No. 21567 of 1999, which came to be disposed of on 29.09.2008 with a specific direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner without taking into account the artificial breaks induced by the respondent Corporation itself in the service of the petitioner. This rejection had constrained the petitioner to approach this Court once again by filing W.P. No. 21567 of 1999, which came to be disposed of on 29.09.2008 with a specific direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner without taking into account the artificial breaks induced by the respondent Corporation itself in the service of the petitioner. Under those circumstances, the respondent authorities passed the impugned order dated 12.10.2009, yet again, rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground that he did not fall within the zone of consideration of G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated 22.04.1994. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition, for the third time. 3. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit opposing the claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that as per G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated 22.04.1994, the services of 211 employees were regularised in 1995, leaving 22 persons out for want of requisite service, i.e., 5 years as on 25.11.1993. One of those 22 persons is said to be the petitioner, since he could not meet the requisite length of service as a precondition to be considered as per the said G.O. Though, in the light of the direction of this Court in W.P. No. 21567/1999, the case of the petitioner was considered, since he could not meet the necessary precondition, the respondent authorities were constrained to reject his representation for regularisation of his services. Thus, it is contended by the respondents that there is no illegality on their part and the writ petition does not have any merit. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Asst. Govt. Pleader for the respondents, apart from perused the records. 5. Indeed, the case on hand has run its course, but has not attained its finality to this day. The petitioner was made to knock the doors of the Court time and time again on the self-same cause, when the respondent authorities persisted on their refusal, even without changing their stand as to the alleged inadequacy of the length of service, notwithstanding the definitive observations of this Court in W.P. No. 21567/1999. 6. The observations of the learned single Judge in Order dated 29.09.2008 in W.P. No. 21567/1999 could be extracted with profit. While disposing of the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge has observed thus: 7. 6. The observations of the learned single Judge in Order dated 29.09.2008 in W.P. No. 21567/1999 could be extracted with profit. While disposing of the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge has observed thus: 7. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Mechanic at L.P.G. Center, Paloncha of the respondent-Corporation on 25.11.1988 and since then he has been continuing with artificial breaks every after 89 days. His further case is that he was transferred to different places and he reported to duty accordingly. He also filed copies of the transfer proceedings. The petitioner also filed a copy of the appointment order dated 25.11.1988 issued by the Manager/Accountant of the respondent-Corporation in this regard. To prove that he has been disengaged every after 89 years, he filed one of the proceedings issued by the Corporation dated 10.10.1996. The respondents in the counter have not controverted this fact. Further, in the counter filed by the respondents it is stated that the petitioner was appointed on 25.11.1988 and that he was ousted from service with effect from 25.10.1989 and that he was not in service for a period of six months from 25.10.1989 to 25.04.1990. But the counter does not speak under what circumstances, the services of the petitioner, were disengaged and why he was again reengaged and continued thereafter. The petitioner also filed representation on 17.12.1995 indicating that he was appointed on 25.11.1988 and has completed five years of service at L.P.G. Centre, Kothagudem and, therefore, sought for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 212. From the counter, no reasons are forthcoming why his services were ousted with effect from 25.10.1989. The work undertaking by the L.P.G. Mechanic in the respondent-Corporation, appears to be perennial in nature, since the petitioner was being re-engaged every after 89 days by giving two days break. It is well settled that creating artificial breaks is not permissible under law. Further, the impugned orders does not appear to have been issued, by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 17.12.1995, wherein the petitioner has categorically stated that he was initially appointed on 25.11.1988. The counter also does not controvert the filing of the representation, dated 25.11.1995. Therefore, any order that is passed by the authorities without considering the material available on record, is improper and is liable to be set aside. 8. The counter also does not controvert the filing of the representation, dated 25.11.1995. Therefore, any order that is passed by the authorities without considering the material available on record, is improper and is liable to be set aside. 8. Further, the other factor, which is asserted is that, similarly situated employee, who was continued with artificial breaks filed W.P. No. 26869/1995 and this Court directed the Government to consider his case as per G.O.Ms. No. 212 and the respondent-Corporation by condoning the artificial breaks, regularized his services. The counsel for the petitioner also produced a copy of the order in W.P. No. 26869/1995. 7. Now in the light of the above observations of the learned Single Judge, the order of rejection in G.O.Rt. No. 89, dated 12.10.2009 was passed. The 1st respondent, having considered the proposal sent by the 2nd respondent on 20.04.2009, observed, rejecting the case of the petitioner, in the following manner: 4. The Vice Chairman & Managing Director has also stated that the petitioner has filed another WP No. 21567/99 in the Hon'ble High Court praying for regularization of his services with effect from 25.11.1988. Corporation filed counter stating that the petitioner was engaged as LPG Mechanic on a daily wages at LPG Centre, Palvoncha on 25.11.1988 to 24.10.1989. He was terminated from service Mechanic afresh at LPG Centre, Palvoncha and he reported to duty on 26.04.1990. Hence the contention of the petitioner that he is in continuous service of the Corporation from 25.11.1988 is not true, as the petitioner was not in service of the Corporation for about 6 months from 25.10.1989 to 25.04.1990 and thus he has not completed 5 years of continuous service as on 25.11.1993 as he has been in continuous service of the Corporation only from 26.04.1990 and does not fulfil the stipulated condition in G.O.Ms. No. 212, Finance & Plg. (Fin. Wing: PC. III) Dept., dt: 22.04.1994. 7. In pursuance of the directions of Hon'ble APHC order dated 29.09.2008 in W.P. No. 21567 of 1999, Government have examined the proposal for regularization of services of Sri A. Someswaram, LPG Mechanic, who was appointed on daily wage basis with effect from the date of his appointment i.e., 26.04.1990. He has not completed the required service of 5 years as on 25.11.1993, which is a statutory obligation as per Act 27/98. He has not completed the required service of 5 years as on 25.11.1993, which is a statutory obligation as per Act 27/98. In view of the said reasons, the case of Sri A. Someswaram, LPG Mechanic on daily wages considered and rejected as per the Act. 2/94 of 27/98. 8. Indisputably the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 21567/1999 has observed that the counter of the respondents filed in the said writ petition does not speak under what circumstances the services of the petitioner were disengaged and why he was again reengaged and continued thereafter. The learned Single Judge has further observed that creating artificial breaks in the service of any casual labour is not permissible under law. What thus remains uncontroverted to this day is that employees who were similarly situated having not completed 5 years of service due to artificial breaks approached this Court earlier and, based on the directions of this Court, their services were regularized. In any event, the observations made in order dated 29.09.2008 in W.P. No. 21567/1999 in paragraphs-7 & 8 therein, have not been controverted and on the other hand, they have attained finality as well. 9. In the light of the above fact situation, it can safely be concluded that the petitioner is deemed to have completed 5 years of service in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated 22.04.1994, inasmuch as the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of artificial breaks imposed on him, given his weak bargaining power as a casual labourer against the might of his employer, which is an autonomous government organisation. 10. Without adding further, given many rounds of litigation, based on the definitive observations made earlier by this Court, it meets the ends of justice, if a direction, hopefully final, is given to regularise the services of the petitioner by treating his service without artificial breaks as having completed 5 years, of course, subject to meeting the other criteria laid down in G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated 22.04.1994 and pass appropriate orders in this regard as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 3 (three) months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the wake of the present direction, the order in G.O.Rt. No. 89, dated 12.10.2009 stands set aside. 11. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. In the wake of the present direction, the order in G.O.Rt. No. 89, dated 12.10.2009 stands set aside. 11. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.