ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the petitioner’s services on completion of five years of service, as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to regularize the petitioner’s services on completion of five years of service and direct the respondent to count the petitioner’s service rendered prior to regularization for the purpose of retirement benefits, grant arrears of salary arising out of such regularization with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum. 2. The petitioner was originally appointed as N.M.R. Technical Work Inspector on daily wage basis on 18.06.1985 in the then Narasaraopet Panchayat Raj Wing and worked upto 03.03.1987 on which date, he was terminated from service without following the procedure laid down by law. The said termination was subject matter of challenge in I.D.No.253 of 1987 on the file of Labour Court, Guntur. The Labour Court, on a comprehensive adjudication of the dispute, passed a Common Award dated 05.05.1989 along with I.D Nos.252 of 1987 and 379 of 1987 holding the termination of the petitioner as illegal and directed the respondents therein to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service with 1/3rd back wages. The said Award was published on the notice board of Labour Court, Guntur on 19.06.1986. Aggrieved by the same, the official respondents filed W.P.No.10552 of 1990 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the same was dismissed on 04.08.1997, as such the Award attained finality. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner was reinstated on 24.09.1990 at Narasaraopet Mandal Praja Parishad and worked there upto 21.11.2011. 3. The petitioner filed O.A.No.6553 of 1998 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal seeking regularization of his services and the same was dismissed on 16.09.1998. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18561 of 1999 before High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the same was disposed of on 10.11.2009 by the Division Bench of the High Court, setting aside the order of Administrative Tribunal and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22-04-1994 (for short ‘G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994’). Pursuant to the order of the High Court, the services of the petitioner were ultimately regularized as per the proceedings dated 15.11.2011 of Deputy Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Guntur as Office Subordinate with prospective effect. This was issued based on the Government Orders in G.O.Rt.No.1534 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Estt.V.A) Department dated 03.10.2011. Pursuant to the same, the services of the petitioner were regularized as Office Subordinate and he is presently working as Office Subordinate at Sattenapalli Mandal Praja Parishad. 4. The petitioner got issued a registered legal notice dated 16.01.2020 to the respondents requesting to count his service on completion of five years for the purpose of regularization and pay consequential benefits arising out of such regularization. Respondents having received the same failed to respond to the notice, thereby, the inaction of the respondents is questioned as arbitrary and illegal, as the delay n regularization is not attributable to this petitioner and it is attributable to the respondents. However, in B. Srinivasulu v. Nellore Municipal Corporation, 2019 (3) SCT 697(SC), the Apex Court clarified the procedure to be followed for counting pre-regularization service. Following the same principle, the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Venkaiah, 2018 (4) ALT 6 held that, the claim of the employee should have been considered immediately if not through pre-regularization services and get counted for the purpose of terminal benefits. The petitioner is on the same footing, but the respondents did not follow the principle laid down in the above judgments and requested to issue a direction as stated above. 5. The respondents did not file any counter affidavit, but advanced arguments during hearing that will be considered at appropriate stage. 6. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri M. Pitchaiah mainly contended that, failure to follow the principles laid down in B. Srinivasulu v. Nellore Municipal Corporation (referred supra) and Government of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Venkaiah (referred supra) by the respondents is a serious irregularity and on account of their inaction, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his service benefits and learned counsel would contend that the petitioner is entitled to claim the benefits and requested to issue a direction as stated supra. 7. 7. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services would contend that, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any benefit, in view of the later judgment of the Apex Court in Surendra Kumar and Others v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, 2015 (7) SCJ 138, where the Apex Court held that, retrospective regularization was declined to extend the benefits and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the sole point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the services of the petitioner are liable to be regularized on completion of five years of services. If so, whether the petitioner is entitled to claim counting of service prior to regularization for the purpose of retirement benefits of this petitioner on completion of five years of service and for arrears of salary arising out of regularization with interest @ 12% per annum. If so, whether it is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India?” P O I N T: 9. Undisputedly, the petitioner was appointed as N.M.R. Technical Work Inspector on daily wage basis initially. The petitioner’s services were regularized by virtue of the order of this Court in W.P.18561 of 1999 dated 10.11.2009 directing the respondents to regularize the services of this petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. Thus, the regularization of services of this petitioner is not in controversy. But, the only dispute is whether the petitioner is entitled to claim regularization of services from the date of joining in service and counting of such services for pensionary benefits and for recovery of salary with interest @ 12% per annum is permissible. 10. The order of the Division Bench of High Court in W.P.No.18561 of 1999 dated 10.11.2009 reads as follows: “Shorn of the facts, the entitlement of the petitioner for regularisation of his services under G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22-04-1994 is no longer in dispute as set out by the Supreme Court in A. Manjula Bhashini v. Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited, (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 431. While considering the said G.O., the Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines. No.212, dated 22-04-1994 is no longer in dispute as set out by the Supreme Court in A. Manjula Bhashini v. Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited, (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 431. While considering the said G.O., the Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines. Admittedly, the petitioner has been working, as on the cut-off date as prescribed therein and therefore, necessarily this case requires to be considered as per the said G.O. In view of the same, the writ petition is allowed and the orders in O.A.No.6553 of 1998 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, dated 16-09-1998 are set aside and there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for regularization of his services in terms of G.O. Ms. No.212 Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22-04-1994 and pass orders in accordance with law. 11. In terms of the above order, the services of the petitioners were regularized. But, the contention of the petitioner is that from the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22-04-1994 the services of the petitioner shall be counted. Copy of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22-04-1994 though not placed on record, Proc.No.2751/2000/A2 dated 15.11.2011 is placed on record, wherein the services of this petitioner were regularized as Office Subordinate in Mandal Praja Parishad, Muppala, specifically stating that the order will come into force as and when the employee joins duty. Thus, from the date of joining in service as Office Subordinate, the petitioner is entitled to claim the benefits in terms of the proceedings Proc.No.2751/2000/A2 dated 15.11.2011 of Deputy Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Guntur. This order was not challenged by the petitioner in any subsequent proceedings till filing of this writ petition in the month of January, 2021. Thus, from the date of joining in service as Office Subordinate, the petitioner is entitled to claim the benefits in terms of the proceedings Proc.No.2751/2000/A2 dated 15.11.2011 of Deputy Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Guntur. This order was not challenged by the petitioner in any subsequent proceedings till filing of this writ petition in the month of January, 2021. A copy of G.O.Rt.No.1534 dated 03.10.2011 of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Estt.VA) Department is placed on record which reads as follows: “Government, after careful examination of the proposals of the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj & Rural Employment, Hyderabad in the references 5th and 6th read above, hereby order that the Break/Gap period from 04.03.1987 to 23.09.1990 in the service of, Sri K.Kondaiah, Daily Wage NMR Work Inspector, O/o Mandal Praja Parishad, Narasaraopet, Guntur District be condoned as per the orders of Labour Court, Guntur dated 05.05.1989 in I.D.No.253/1987 read with the orders of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. dated 10.11.2009 in W.P.No. 18561/99 and orders of Hon’ble A.P.A.T. dated 16.9.2009 in O.A. No. 6553/98. 2. The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Hyderabad is hereby permitted to regularize the services of Sri K. Kondaiah in the post of Office Subordinate in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance (P.C.III) Department, dated 22.4.1994 from prospective date, i.e., from the date of issue of orders subject to condition that the vacancy is clear, regular and continued from time to time till to date and that no senior eligible person is overlooked/omitted. 3. The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment/Chief Executive Officer, Zill Praja Parishad, Guntur District shall take further necessary action accordingly. 12. Thus, the order of appointment in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.18561 of 1999 dated 10.11.2009 is prospective and it cannot be given retrospective effect to disturb the seniority in the cadre. But, the petitioner is claiming regularization of service from the date of completion of five of years of service and consequential direction to regularise the petitioner’s service on completion of five years of service. 13. But, the petitioner is claiming regularization of service from the date of completion of five of years of service and consequential direction to regularise the petitioner’s service on completion of five years of service. 13. As long as G.O.Rt.No.1534 dated 03.10.2011 of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Estt.VA) Department and order of appointment of this petitioner vide Proc.No.2751/2000/A2 dated 15.11.2011 of Deputy Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Guntur are not challenged, the relief claimed in this writ petition cannot be granted to this petitioner declaring the action of the respondents for their failure to regularize the services soon after completion of five years of service as illegal, arbitrary and violative of constitutional provisions, since such retrospective effect cannot be permitted. 14. In Manjula Bhashini v. Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited (referred supra), the Supreme Court observed that, the Supreme Court noted that a number of persons who were employed on daily wage basis/nominal muster roll/consolidated pay who did not complete five years as on 25.11.1993 challenged G.O.Ms.No. 212 before the Tribunal and thereafter, this Court. That apart, part-time employees who were not covered by G.O.Ms.No.212 also approached the Tribunal and then, this Court, claiming regularization of their services. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the Government issued G.O.P. No.112 dated 23.07.1997 for regularization of part-time employees who had worked continuously for a minimum period of ten years and were continuing as on 25.11.1993, subject to certain conditions. 15. Amendments were also made to the Act of 1994 vide Amendment Act 27 of 1998. One such amendment was that the date for reckoning the eligibility for regularization should be 25.11.1993. Daily wage employees and others similarly situated who were affected by this amendment challenged the same in a batch of writ petitions before this Court. A learned Judge of this Court allowed all the writ petitions holding that the amendments were contrary to the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. This order was however reversed in appeal by the Division Bench. The Division Bench however held that daily wagers and the like who completed five years of service as on 19.08.1998, the date on which Amendment Act 27 of 1998 was published in the Gazette, would be entitled to seek regularization in service. This order was the subjected to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Division Bench however held that daily wagers and the like who completed five years of service as on 19.08.1998, the date on which Amendment Act 27 of 1998 was published in the Gazette, would be entitled to seek regularization in service. This order was the subjected to appeal before the Supreme Court. Upon a conspectus of earlier case law on G.O.Ms.No.212, the Supreme Court framed the following questions for consideration: (i) Whether the persons employed on daily-wage basis or nominal muster roll or consolidated pay or as contingent worker on full-time basis in different departments of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and its agencies/ instrumentalities are entitled to be regularized in service on completion of 5 years, and (ii) Whether amendments made in the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (for short "the 1994 Act") by Amendment Acts 3 and 27 of 1998 are ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution. 16. One of the arguments advanced before the Supreme Court was that once the policy contained in G.O.Ms.No.212 was given effect to and persons appointed on daily wages/nominal muster roll/consolidated pay acquired a right thereunder to be regularized in service, the State could not have deprived them of the said right by amending the Act of 1994. Another argument was that once the Supreme Court held that all persons appointed on daily wages/nominal muster roll/consolidated pay were entitled to be regularized with effect from the date of completion of five years of continuous service, the legislature was not justified in prescribing 25.11.1993 as the cut-off date for determining the eligibility of such daily wagers etc. for the purpose of regularization. 17. Upon consideration of the issue and case law, more particularly, the decision in District Collector/Chairperson and others v. M.L. Singh and others, (2009) 8 SCC 480 , the Supreme Court opined that it was clear that it had earlier not considered the matter in the background in which the Act of 1994 was enacted and the mischief that was sought to be remedied by it. It was further observed that utter non-application of mind by the officers concerned resulted in the use of an ambiguous expression in the policy of regularization enunciated in G.O.Ms.No.212, which had generated enormous litigation and an avoidable exercise by the State and its employees. It was further observed that utter non-application of mind by the officers concerned resulted in the use of an ambiguous expression in the policy of regularization enunciated in G.O.Ms.No.212, which had generated enormous litigation and an avoidable exercise by the State and its employees. The amendments made to the Act of 1994 were held to be for the purpose of making the policy of regularization a part of the said enactment and to harmonize the same with the prohibition contained in Section 7 of the Act of 1994 against regularization of daily-wage and temporary employees. The Supreme Court held that the amendments made to the Act of 1994 did not have the effect of nullifying or overriding District Collector/Chairperson and others v. M.L. Singh and others (referred supra). It was further held that the policy of regularization contained in the first proviso to Section 7 inserted by the Amendment Act was a onetime measure intended to benefit only those daily-wage employees who completed five years of service on or before 25.11.1993 and those who did so after 25.11.1993 could not claim regularization. Dealing with the issue as to whether the cut-off date, i.e., 25.11.1993, specified in the first proviso to Section 7 of the Act of 1994, as amended, for determination of the eligibility of daily-wage employees to be considered for regularization, was arbitrary, irrational or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court observed that fixation of the said cut-off date in the context of the Act of 1994 was justified and valid. The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the direction of the Division Bench that those who completed five years of service as on the date of the Amendment Act, viz., 19.08.1998, were entitled to regularization in service. The Supreme Court however made it clear that daily wage employees and others who were covered by Section 7 of the Act of 1994, as amended, and whose services had not been regularized so far would be entitled to be considered for regularization and their services were directed to be regularized, subject to fulfilment of the conditions enumerated in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22-04-1994. With a view to obviate further litigation, the Supreme Court directed the Government of Andhra Pradesh, its officers and agencies/ instrumentalities of the State to complete the exercise of regularizing services of eligible employees within a time frame. 18. With a view to obviate further litigation, the Supreme Court directed the Government of Andhra Pradesh, its officers and agencies/ instrumentalities of the State to complete the exercise of regularizing services of eligible employees within a time frame. 18. The same was considered in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Venkaiah (referred supra), wherein, the Division Bench concluded that it may however be noticed that the trajectory of developments since the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.212, as set out hereinbefore, demonstrates that there was no consistency even in the orders passed by the Tribunal and this Court. Identically situated people were treated differently. The narration supra in relation to this very batch of cases demonstrates that the Tribunal gave the benefit of B. Srinivasulu v. Nellore Municipal Corporation (referred supra) to some and denied it to others. In such a fluid and uncertain situation, an employee cannot be blamed for seeking relief even after lapse of some years as there was no clarity as to the legal position. As the Supreme Court has now settled the same by way of its decision in B. Srinivasulu v. Nellore Municipal Corporation (referred supra) decided on 17.08.2015 (supra), employees who completed five years of service on or before 25.11.1993 and were already regularised in service with prospective effect cannot be found fault with for approaching this Court with some delay so as to seek the benefit of their past service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 at least for the limited purpose of their pension and pensionary benefits. 19. Finally, the Division Bench of the High Court arrived at the following conclusions: “The learned Government Pleader would also point out that some of the O.As./writ petitions were filed with substantial delay after the regularization orders were passed, giving the benefit of G.O.Ms. No. 212 with effect from the stipulated dates therein prospectively. She would assert that such settled matters should not be unsettled merely because the Supreme Court passed the subsequent order in B. Srinivasulu Civil Appeal No. 6318 of 2015 decided on 17.08.2015 (supra). It may however be noticed that the trajectory of developments since the issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 212, as set out hereinbefore, demonstrates that there was no consistency even in the orders passed by the Tribunal and this Court. Identically situated people were treated differently. It may however be noticed that the trajectory of developments since the issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 212, as set out hereinbefore, demonstrates that there was no consistency even in the orders passed by the Tribunal and this Court. Identically situated people were treated differently. The narration supra in relation to this very batch of cases demonstrates that the Tribunal gave the benefit of B. Srinivasulu Civil Appeal No. 6318 of 2015 decided on 17.08.2015 (supra) to some and denied it to others. In such a fluid and uncertain situation, an employee cannot be blamed for seeking relief even after lapse of some years as there was no clarity as to the legal position. As the Supreme Court has now settled the same by way of its decision in B. Srinivasulu Civil Appeal No. 6318 of 2015 decided on 17.08.2015 (supra), employees who completed five years of service on or before 25.11.1993 and were already regularised in service with prospective effect cannot be found fault with for approaching this Court with some delay so as to seek the benefit of their past service in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 212 at least for the limited purpose of their pension and pensionary benefits. 52. On the above analysis, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the authorities concerned to extend the benefit of B. Srinivasulu Civil Appeal No. 6318 of 2015 decided on 17.08.2015 (supra) to the employees in this batch of cases by reckoning their services from the date of completion of five years in service, on or before 25.11.1993, for the purposes of their pension and pensionary benefits. They shall however not be entitled to actual monetary benefits for the said period, in the form of arrears of pay or allowances. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. No order as to costs.” 20. Viewed from any angle, even if the principle laid down in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Venkaiah (referred supra) is applied to the present facts of the case, the services of the petitioner can be counted only for the purpose of pensionary benefits, but not for payment of salary. Therefore, claiming benefit from the date of completion of five years of service i.e. retrospective regularisation and payment of salary from that date is not supported by principle laid down in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Venkaiah (referred supra). Therefore, claiming benefit from the date of completion of five years of service i.e. retrospective regularisation and payment of salary from that date is not supported by principle laid down in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Venkaiah (referred supra). However, in Surendra Kumar and Others v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (referred supra), a question came up before the Apex Court where regularization of contract employees was not appointed as against sanctioned post before they were substantially appointed before regularization with retrospective effect with all consequential benefits. The Division Bench of the Supreme Court noted the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors, (2006) 4 SCC 1 . In Paragraph No.10 of the judgment, then Supreme Court observed as follows: “In the impugned judgment, the Division Bench proceeded on the premise as if Uma Devi's case (supra) held that the State Government, in no circumstance, can regularise the services of contractual employees. In para (53) of Uma Devi's case (supra), the Constitution Bench carved out an exception by observing that the Union of India/State Governments/their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise the services of such irregular employees who have worked for more than ten years and para (53) reads as under: One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa (1967) 1 SCR 128 , R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah (1972) 1 SCC 409 , and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka (1979) 4 SCC 507 , and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme” 21. The Apex Court in Surendra Kumar and Others v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (referred supra) finally concluded as follows: “The Appellants were initially engaged on contractual basis and they were not appointed against any sanctioned post before they were substantially appointed on the said post on 6.08.2010. Even though advertisement dated 20.11.2002 indicated that there were vacancies, the policy of regularization of contractual employees was approved by the State Government only on 05.03.2008. The Appellants were appointed on the post of Assistant Manager (Civil) only pursuant to the policy decision of the Respondents for regularisation of contractual employees and thus, the Appellants cannot seek for regularization with retrospective effect from 20.11.2002, that is when the advertisement was issued, because at that time regularisation policy was not in vogue. By policy of regularisation, it was intended to give the benefit only from the date of appointment. The Court cannot read anything into the policy decision which is plain and unambiguous. Having accepted the appointment orders dated 6.08.2010 and also joined the post, the Appellants cannot turn round and claim regularisation with retrospective effect.” 22. By policy of regularisation, it was intended to give the benefit only from the date of appointment. The Court cannot read anything into the policy decision which is plain and unambiguous. Having accepted the appointment orders dated 6.08.2010 and also joined the post, the Appellants cannot turn round and claim regularisation with retrospective effect.” 22. If, this principle is applied to the present facts of the case, the petitioner joined in the post of Office Subordinate accepting the appointment order vide Proceedings No.2751/2000/A2 dated 15.11.2011 of Deputy Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Guntur and even now, without challenging the same, cannot turn around and claim regularization with retrospective effect. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any benefit from the date when he completed five years of service in the post of N.M.R. Technical Inspector, but, he is entitled to claim benefit from the day when he was appointed as Office Subordinate. Accordingly, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to claim retrospective regularization from the day when he completed five years of service, but entitled to claim benefit from the date when his services were regularized. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to claim financial benefits as Office Subordinate from the day prior to his regularization vide Proceedings No.2751/2000/A2 dated 15.11.2011 of Deputy Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Guntur, since the petitioner did not challenge the legality of Proceedings No.2751/2000/A2 dated 15.11.2011 and G.O.Rt.No.1534 dated 03.10.2011 of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Estt.VA) Department. 23. The other claim of this petitioner is that, the petitioner is entitled to claim benefit of past service for fixation of pensionary benefit. In Government of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Venkaiah (referred supra), the Division Bench in clear terms declared that such service can be considered for the purpose of pensionary benefits only. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to claim counting of past service from the date of completion of five years of service in the post only after limited purpose of fixation of pension. 24. In view of my foregoing discussion, I hold without any hesitation that the petitioner is not entitled to claim any benefits soon after completion of five years of service, in view of the Proceedings No.2751/2000/A2 dated 15.11.2011 of Deputy Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Guntur and G.O.Rt.No.1534 dated 03.10.2011 of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Estt.VA) Department, in the absence of any challenge thereto. I further hold that the petitioner is entitled to claim benefit of past service only for the purpose of calculation of pensionary benefits, strictly in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Venkaiah (referred supra). 25. In the result, writ petition is allowed-in-part, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to claim any benefits soon after completion of five years of service, in view of the Proceedings No.2751/2000/A2 dated 15.11.2011 of Deputy Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Guntur and G.O.Rt.No.1534 dated 03.10.2011 of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Estt.VA) Department, in the absence of any challenge thereto. I further hold that the petitioner is entitled to claim benefit of past service only for the purpose of calculation of pensionary benefits, strictly in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Venkaiah (referred supra). No costs. 26. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed.