JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. Narasimha Murthy, learned standing counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 60/writ petitioners. 2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 15.10.2019 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 14944 of 2019, directing the appellant-Corporation and respondent No. 61 herein (respondents therein) to regularize the services of respondent Nos. 1 to 60/writ petitioners by reckoning their respective service of five years from the date of joining as mentioned in the annexure of G.O.Ms. No. 31, Finance (HR. III) Department, dated 28.02.2017, and grant all consequential benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 3. The case projected by respondent Nos. 1 to 60/writ petitioners is that they have been serving the appellant-Corporation for the last more than 30 years and though they have been continuously requesting for regularization of their services in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994 on completion of five years of service, the appellant-Corporation did not consider such request and only at the fag end of their service, the appellant-Corporation had regularized their services and some others by issuing G.O.Ms. No. 31, Finance (HR.III) Department, dated 28.02.2017. It is pleaded that the Corporation had selectively regularized the services of some of the employees earlier and due to non-regularization of the services of respondent Nos. 1 to 60/writ petitioners on completion of five years of service, they are deprived of revision of pay scale, annual increments, promotions and retirement benefits. With the aforesaid factual background, the writ petition came to be filed for a direction to the authorities to regularize the services of respondent Nos. 1 to 60/writ petitioners with effect from the date of their employment with all consequential benefits, arrears of salary with interest at 12% per annum, costs of the proceedings, etc. 4. Mr. P. Narasimha Murthy, learned standing counsel for the appellant-Corporation, submits that the direction to regularize the services of respondent Nos. 1 to 60/writ petitioners with effect from the date of completion of five years of service is contrary to the scheme of regularization envisaged in G.O.Ms. No. 31 dated 28.02.2017 and that G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22.04.1994 and G.O.(P). Mr. P. Narasimha Murthy, learned standing counsel for the appellant-Corporation, submits that the direction to regularize the services of respondent Nos. 1 to 60/writ petitioners with effect from the date of completion of five years of service is contrary to the scheme of regularization envisaged in G.O.Ms. No. 31 dated 28.02.2017 and that G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22.04.1994 and G.O.(P). No. 112, Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 23.07.1997, were not taken into consideration by the learned single Judge. It is further submitted that the writ petition was disposed of before any counter-affidavit was filed by the appellant-Corporation and, therefore, prejudice is caused to the appellant-Corporation. 5. Mr. M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 60/writ petitioners, submits that the order under challenge was passed in the presence of the standing counsel for the appellant-Corporation and a perusal of the order would go to show that no prayer was made for grant of time to file counter-affidavit. He has placed reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in the case of Government of A.P. v. N. Venkaiah, reported in 2018 (4) ALD 590 (DB) in support of the directions of the learned single Judge and has submitted that no interference is warranted in this appeal. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 7. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the appeal came to be filed with an application for condonation of delay of 388 days in filing the same. The order of the learned single Judge is an oral order and if the order was passed despite a prayer being made for grant of time to file counter-affidavit, it will be reasonable to expect that the appeal would have been filed immediately alleging violation of principles of natural justice as the appellant-Corporation was denied the opportunity of effectively contesting the case. In the circumstances of the case, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned standing counsel for the appellant-Corporation that without granting time for filing counter-affidavit despite a prayer being made, the learned single Judge proceeded to dispose of the matter. 8. Paragraph 3 of the order of the learned single Judge reads as follows : "3. In the circumstances of the case, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned standing counsel for the appellant-Corporation that without granting time for filing counter-affidavit despite a prayer being made, the learned single Judge proceeded to dispose of the matter. 8. Paragraph 3 of the order of the learned single Judge reads as follows : "3. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed as full-time contingent employees in various depots of second respondent-Corporation and their services were regularized with effect from 28.2.2017. The grievance of the petitioners is that by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 31, Finance (HR. III) Department, dated 28.2.2017, the services of the petitioners have to be regularized with effect from the date on which the concerned employee has completed five years of service, but their services were regularized from the date of the G.O. The counsel also submits that the dates of joining of the petitioners are mentioned against their names in the annexure of the G.O." 9. It appears that G.O.Ms. No. 31 dated 28.02.2017 was mistakenly mentioned in the aforesaid order and in its place, G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22.04.1994 should have been mentioned, inasmuch as the plea taken by respondent Nos. 1 to 60/writ petitioners in the writ petition was that as per G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22.04.1994, which is available at page No. 56 of the appeal papers, their services have to be regularized with effect from the date on which the concerned employee has completed five years of service and the grievance expressed was that by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 31 dated 28.02.2017, their services were regularized from the date of the said G.O. 10. It is pertinent to note that G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22.04.1994 was issued on the basis of the decision taken by the Government that the services of such persons who worked continuously for a minimum period of five years and are continuing as on 25.11.1993 be regularized subject to fulfillment of certain terms and conditions including that 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. 11. G.O.Ms. No. 31 dated 28.02.2017 takes note of, amongst others, G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22.04.1994 as well as G.O.(P). No. 112 dated 23.07.1997. G.O.(P). 11. G.O.Ms. No. 31 dated 28.02.2017 takes note of, amongst others, G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22.04.1994 as well as G.O.(P). No. 112 dated 23.07.1997. G.O.(P). No. 112 dated 23.07.1997 was issued to regularize part-time employees subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. Thus, the said G.O.(P). is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. A perusal of G.O.Ms. No. 31 dated 28.02.2017 goes to show that the Government had taken a policy decision to create requisite number of posts on supernumerary basis in the departments and the autonomous institutions under the control of the State Government for the benefit of all those employees who had fulfilled the eligibility conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22.04.1994 and G.O.(P). No. 112 dated 23.07.1997 but could not be regularized for want of a vacancy in the unit of appointment against the roster point meant for the social group. It was also noted therein that the appellant-Corporation had furnished the details of 143 unskilled workers, who had completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993 and whose services have not been regularized. Accordingly, the Government had sanctioned 143 posts in the category of Helper (category 7 of Andhra Pradesh Last Grade Service Rules, 1992) on supernumerary basis. It was further noted that the posts so created on supernumerary basis are exclusively meant for regularization of services of those eligible employees whose services have not been regularized for want of clear vacancies and the supernumerary posts so created would be personal to the individuals holding the posts and the posts will get automatically abolished immediately after a regular vacancy arises in the category or on vacation of the post by the individuals due to promotion, appointment by transfer, death or retirement. 13. Therefore, there is no manner of doubt that respondent Nos. 1 to 60/writ petitioners had fulfilled the requirements of G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22.04.1994. 14. In the case of N. Venkaiah (supra), it was observed that when no regular exercise was ever undertaken in any Department to assess the vacancy position so as to immediately extend benefit to those covered by G.O.Ms. No. 212, it is not open to the State to say that there were no vacancies as on the date that the employees in question completed five years of service, on or before 25.11.1993. No. 212, it is not open to the State to say that there were no vacancies as on the date that the employees in question completed five years of service, on or before 25.11.1993. It was further observed that when such employees were retained in service for decades together, the necessity to continue them as per the workload is manifest and clearly demonstrated, requiring no further evidence and even if there is any doubt as to whether condition No. 5 of G.O.Ms. No. 212 is fulfilled as on the date of completion of five years in service by the employees concerned, the benefit of doubt would invariably have to be given to the said employees and not to the State. It was further observed that they are not to be given any monetary benefits in the form of arrears of pay or otherwise. 15. Following the Division Bench judgment in N. Venkaiah (supra), we hold that the services of respondent Nos. 1 to 60/writ petitioners would be deemed to have been regularized from the cut-off date, i.e., 25.11.1993, for the purpose of fixation of pension and pensionary benefits. As held in the aforesaid judgment, respondent Nos. 1 to 60/writ petitioners are not to be given any monetary benefits in the form of arrears of pay or otherwise from that date. Respondent Nos. 1 to 60/writ petitioners will be entitled to salary in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 31 dated 28.02.2017. 16. Resultantly, the writ appeal stands disposed of modifying the order of the learned single Judge to the extent indicated above. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.