ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- "To issue order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in regularizing the services of the writ petitioner as Asst. Grade-III with effect from 28.07.2017 as fixed in G.O.Ms.12 of the 1st respondent, Dt.28.07.2017 by ignoring the date of vacancy as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.448, dt: 16.06.1989 of the 1st respondent and contrary to what was done to similarly situated persons namely Sri J.Sudhakar, P.Narayana Reddy and others and not paying to the petitioner’s retirement benefits to him as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to regularize petitioner’s service from the date of his employment i.e., 03.01.1985 or such other date as this Hon’ble Court deems as fit and proper with all consequent benefits, difference of salary and retirement benefits namely Gratuity, Leave Salary, and other pensionary benefits with interest @ 12% per annum. Grant Cost of the proceedings and pass such other order." 2. The petitioner herein was temporarily appointed on 01.1985 as Typist on daily basis in District Office at Guntur of A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and he was orally terminated by proceedings dated 31.10.1988. Aggrieved by the oral termination order, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Labour Court, Guntur. The Labour Court, vide proceedings dated 24.06.1992 in I.D.No.283 of 1989, has directed the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner as Clerk-cum-Typist with continuity of service and other attendant benefits without back wages by setting aside the oral termination order. 3. Aggrieved by the said order of Labour Court dated 24.06.1992 in I.D.No.283 of 1989, the respondents herein have assailed the same in W.P.No.4236 of 1993 before the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad (hereinafter called as ‘High Court’) and the High Court has disposed of the said Writ Petition, vide order dated 24.06.1997. 4. Accordingly, the petitioner herein was reinstated on 05.06.1993 as Clerk-cum-Typist. The petitioner herein made several representations to the respondents 1 and 2 herein repeatedly for regularization of his services as per G.O.Ms.No.448, Food & Agriculture (C.S.III) Department dated 16.06.1989 with effect from 03.01.1985. The said date is the appointment date of the petitioner herein. 5. 4. Accordingly, the petitioner herein was reinstated on 05.06.1993 as Clerk-cum-Typist. The petitioner herein made several representations to the respondents 1 and 2 herein repeatedly for regularization of his services as per G.O.Ms.No.448, Food & Agriculture (C.S.III) Department dated 16.06.1989 with effect from 03.01.1985. The said date is the appointment date of the petitioner herein. 5. It is also pertinent to mention that the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.4868 of 1994 before the composite High Court to direct the respondents to regularize his services in the Corporation as Clerk-cum-Typist in pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.448, dated 16.06.1989 by paying back wages and on 24.06.1997, the High Court passed the order which reads as follows: "In our view the said orders of Labour Court is just and proper. Hence the same does not warrant any interference. The petitioners contention that the Labour Court ought to have ordered for regularization of the petitioners services is quite alien to the issue. That has to be pursued before the Labour Court. If the petitioner feels that his services should have been regularized in view of G.O.Ms.No.448 dtd: 16.06.1989, it is open to him to make representation to the respondent authorities. If such representation is given, the same shall be considered as per law by the respondent-authorities. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs." 6. Basing upon the repeated representations, the 2nd respondent had sent the proposal to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent had considered the same in consultation with the Finance Department and the services of the petitioner were regularized by the 1st respondent, vide G.O.Ms.No.12, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department dated 28.07.2017, which reads as follows: "Hereby regularized the services of Sri J. Purna Chandra Rao, Typist (Daily Wages) working in the Office of the District Manager, APSCSCL, Guntur against the proposed vacancy of Assistant Grade III in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance (PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994, from prospective date as per Memo No.573/225/A3/PC.III/97, dated 01.09.1997 i.e., from the date of issue of orders, subject to condition that the said vacancy is clear, regular and continued from time to time till date and no senior eligible person is overlooked/omitted and subject to following rule of reservation." 7. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in appointing the petitioner, vide G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 28.07.2017, ignoring the date of vacancy as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.448 dated 16.06.1989 and not regularizing the services with retrospective date as his initial appointment date 03.01.1985, filed the present Writ Petition. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the services of the persons, who were appointed subsequent to the petitioner, were regularized as Typist with retrospective date and not considering the case of the petitioner would amount to arbitrary and therefore prayed to direct the respondents herein to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment, i.e., 03.01.1985 in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.448 dated 16.06.1989. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents filed their counter and have accepted all the facts stated supra and contends that the petitioner herein made a representation dated 29.07.2017 to regularize his service as Asst. Grade-III in pursuant to Memo dated 01.09.1997 and accordingly the petitioner was appointed vide G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 28.07.2017, accordingly the services of the petitioner were regularized in the cadre of Assistant Grade-III from the date of issuance of the orders, vide proceedings dated 31.07.2017 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 28.07.2017 and now the petitioner cannot raise any objections having accepted for regularization from the prospective date and the same is evident through his representation dated 29.07.2017 and stated that all the benefits were paid to the petitioner and he would also contend that no vacancy in the cadre of Typist and therefore, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade-III and the petitioner cannot compare with the other employees who were absorbed/ regularized in the APSCSC Limited from the date of their joining as the individuals merged with APSCSC Limited and RP & RD Department and the petitioner is working on daily wage and therefore he is not entitled to compare with the other employees to regularize his services retrospectively and orally contended that the petitioner was not appointed in any sanctioned post. 10. 10. It is mainly contested by the respondents that there is no vacancy of Typist and his appointment is irregular appointment and his services were utilized as job typist only for 13 days, i.e., from 01.10.1988 to 12.10.1988, for which period, he was paid @Rs.210/- per day and he was engaged as Typist during the maternity leave of a regular Typist as he was a daily wage employee, his services cannot be regularized as the petitioner was not appointed in any sanctioned post and hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and another vs. Manpreet Singh Poonam Etc. : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254, wherein the Apex Court has held that a mere existence of vacancy per se will not create a right in favour of an employee for retrospective promotion when the vacancies in the promotional post is specifically prescribed under the rules, which also mandate the clearance through a selection process. He also relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India and another vs. Magi H. Desai : 2023 SCC Online SC 336, wherein the Supreme Court held that in the absence of any scheme in the appellants’ department in which the respondent rendered service, the appellant-Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India is an autonomous independent department/body, as observed heein above, neither the rule nor the regularization scheme provide that services rendered as casual/contractual shall be treated as temporary service and/or the same shall be counted for the purposes of pensionary/service benefits. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and others vs. Munshi Ram : 2023(1) SLJ 1, for the proposition that the services rendered prior to the regularization to be counted for the pensionary benefits, the employees working in different zones/divisions are required to be treated as similarly and equally placed persons and are entitled to similar benefits and are entitled to the same treatment and there cannot be any discrimination inter se and there cannot be different criteria/parameters with respect to similarly situated employees while working under the same employer. 13. 13. Now the point for consideration is that whether this Court can order/direct the respondents herein to regularize the services of the petitioner retrospectively and whether the petitioner has accepted his regularization from the prospective date as per the representation dated 29.07.2017? 14. The Supreme Court in Surendra Kumar v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority : (2015) 14 SCC 382 at paragraph No.14 of the said judgment by referring another judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of M.P. Palanisamy v. A. Krishnan : (2009) 6 SCC 428 , held that once the regularization orders have been accepted by the writ petitioners, which were conditional, then it has to be born in mind that they have accepted the condition also. In the present case, the petitioner herein made a representation to the respondent-authorities to regularize his services in Assistant Grade-III post and accordingly, the respondents herein have appointed the petitioner herein in Assistant Grade-III post and the said appointment was accepted by the petitioner herein without any protest. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that he should be regularized from the date of initial appointment. 15. In view of the above said judgment, the petitioner now cannot agitate that he should be appointed retrospectively, as he has accepted the condition and joined in the service by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 28.07.2017, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition. 16. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief much less for his appointment retrospectively. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.