ORDER : The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief :- “to issue appropriate writ order or orders particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in not regularizing petitioners’ services on par with the other similarly situated persons in view of the G.O.Ms.No.601 dated 12.12.2017, orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.20900 of 2017 dated 10.07.2017 and W.P.No.37159 of 2018 and G.O.Ms.No.142 dated 27.08.2018 and G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 05.03.2021, is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unfair and violation of Article 14, 19, 21 and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the petitioners services from the date of completion of five years of service with consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders ….”. 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that petitioner No.1 was appointed in Commercial Tax Office, Ambajipeta, East Godavari District, as part-time man worker on monthly remuneration of Rs.75/-. Petitioner No.2 was appointed as part time water boy –cum-Sweeper in Commercial Taxes Office, Suryaraopeta, Kakinada w.e.f. 01.07.1992 on daily wage basis. Petitioner No.3 was appointed as a man-worker on part time basis to sweep and fetch water in Commercial Tax Office, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.250/- per month. Petitioner No.4 is appointed as part time man worker in Commercial Taxes Office, Mangalavarapupeta, Rajahmundry on consolidated pay of Rs.250/- per month w.e.f. 15.02.1993, under special rules and restrictions laid down in A.P. Finance Code Volume II vide item 34 of Appendix 7. Petitioner No.5 is appointed as part time water boy Commercial Tax office, Mummidivaram from 11.04.1989 with a minimum pay of Rs.75/- per month. Later basing on representations made by the petitioners, their wages are being enhanced. 3. Petitioners, from the date of their appointment, have been discharging duties. According to the petitioners, they made several representations to the authorities seeking regularization of services in the cadre of Attender/Office Sub-ordinate. Few appointments were made in the cadre of part time sweeper – cum- watch night watchman even after cut off dated 25.11.1993 and they have been continuing till date on the strength of stay orders passed by Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 4. Few appointments were made in the cadre of part time sweeper – cum- watch night watchman even after cut off dated 25.11.1993 and they have been continuing till date on the strength of stay orders passed by Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 4. Government, vide G.O.Rt.No.3080 GA (Cabinet) Department dated 09.09.2014 had constituted a committee comprising group of Ministers under the Chairmanship of Minister for Finance to review the existing system of contractual employment and to recommend legal and statutory framework therein. 5. G.O.Ms.No.142 dated 27.08.2018 was issued whereby Government, agreed to the recommendations made by group of Ministers regarding drawing of minimum pay + DA in RPS, 2010 and to extend minimum pay + DA in the revised pay scales, 2015 keeping in view judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.213 of 2013. Petitioners were sanctioned minimum pay scale as per G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 27.08.2018. Since petitioners’ services are not regularized though they have been working under the respondent since long time, the present writ petition is filed. 6. Counter is filed on behalf of respondent No.3. It was contended inter alia that appointment of petitioners is purely on temporary basis and will be terminated at any time without notice. In compliance of orders of composite High Court in W.P.No.35159 of 2018, G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 05.03.2021 was issued, after examination of the matter, and agreed to sanction minimum wages, which is equal to minimum pay and allowance to class-IV regular employees scale to some persons subject to certain conditions. Government also directed the Chief Commissioner of State Tax, A.P., Vijayawada to take further action in the matter. It is stated that petitioners will not come under the purview of G.O.Ms.No.212, F & P., (Dept)., dated 22.04.1994 and G.O.(P) No.112, F & P Dept., dated 23.07.1997. The representation made by the petitioners seeking “equal work equal pay” policy as per G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 05.03.2021 was forwarded to Chief Commissioner (ST), Vijyawada, 10.08.2021. Respondent No.3, eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Heard learned counsel on either side. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment reported in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 , Nihal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, 2013 (14) SCC 65 and order dated 02.03.2020 passed in W.P.No.4465 of 2020. 9. 7. Heard learned counsel on either side. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment reported in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 , Nihal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, 2013 (14) SCC 65 and order dated 02.03.2020 passed in W.P.No.4465 of 2020. 9. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader would submit that appointment of the petitioners is not against sanctioned posts and hence, petitioners’ case cannot be considered for regularization or absorption as per para 53 of Uma Devi’s case (referred supra). 10. In U.V.S.R.Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2017 (6) ALT 751 (DB) after considering the ratio in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and A.Manjula Bhashini v. Managing Director, A.P. Women’s Cooperative Finance Ltd., (2009) 8 SCC 431 the Division Bench observed as follows: "15. Concededly, the Supreme Court in A.Manjula Bhashini Vs. The Managing Director, A.P. Women's Cooperative Finance Limited has not referred to the judgment in Uma Devi's case. Thus, in our opinion, the directions given in para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case and the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 along with its amendments and the judgment in A.Manjula Bhashini's case operate in different situations. 16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of persons, who entered service through backdoors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time absorption/ regularization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, while giving directions in para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case. But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regularization/absorption exist. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, while giving directions in para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case. But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regularization/absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, do not whittle down the width and the judgment in Manjula Bhashini's case does not lower the trajectory of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in para 53 of its judgment in Uma Devi's case. It is, therefore, not permissible for the respondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, to deny regularization to the petitioners who have, admittedly, satisfied the criteria laid down in para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case." 11. In C.Mahender v. Pottisreeramulu Telugu University, 2020 (4) ALD 379 (DB), the Division Bench of Telangana High Court after considering Uma Devi’s case, State of Karnataka v. M.L.Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 and other relevant cases, allowed the writ petition wherein it was observed as under: “It is not known why the 1st respondent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi (supra) as explained in M.L.Kesari (supra) and undertook a one-time exercise of preparing the list of daily wage employees who had worked for more than ten (10) years without the intervention of the Courts and Tribunals as on 10.04.2006 and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess requisite qualifications for the posts, and if so, regularize their services.” 12. Similar view was taken in Principal Secretary, PR and RD Department, Hyderabad v. N.Venkaiah, 2018 (4) ALT 6 (DB) by this Court. It was observed as under: "50. As already pointed out, 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 now come forward and say that there were no vacancies as on the date that the employees in question completed five years in service, on or before 25.11.1993. A mere assertion in this regard is nothing short of an unsupported self serving ipse dixit on the part of the State and its instrumentalities and cannot be accepted at face value. Further, the facts in some of the cases on hand clearly demonstrate that despite clear vacancies being available, no timely steps were taken. Further, 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. In such a situation where the State and its instrumentalities are responsible for the situation where it cannot be assessed now as to whether Condition No.5 in G.O.Ms.No.212 stood 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 is perhaps this very aspect that weighed with the Supreme Court in B.Srinivasulu v. Nellore Municipal Corporation, Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015 decided on 17.08.2015 (supra), as no mention was made therein of strict compliance with Condition No.5 in G.O.Ms.No.212, despite the said issue being brought up by the Nellore Municipal Corporation. 51. The question of the State Exchequer being saddled with additional expenditure in relation to such regularization does not arise, as the relief already granted to some of the employees in the cases on hand is to reckon their services upon completion of five years on or before 25.11.1993 only for the purpose of their pension and pensionary benefits. They are not to be given any monetary benefits in the form of arrears of pay or otherwise. Similar relief would have to be extended to those employees who were non-suited by the Tribunal and are before this Court. As all of them served the State or its instrumentalities for decades together, extending to them the benefits can hardly be said to be an onerous burden either on the State or the State Exchequer. Having utilized their services all along, the State and its instrumentalities cannot now turn their back on the loyal services rendered by these employees.” 13. In view of the above principle and since petitioners have been rendering their service since 1989, 1992 and 1993, respondents shall consider petitioners’ case for regularization of their services, subject to their possessing other requisite qualifications and fulfillment of conditions. 14. In view of the above principle and since petitioners have been rendering their service since 1989, 1992 and 1993, respondents shall consider petitioners’ case for regularization of their services, subject to their possessing other requisite qualifications and fulfillment of conditions. 14. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.