ORDER : This writ petition is filed praying to grant the following relief: “… to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in the post they are working with effect from the date of availability of clear vacancies as per the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Dept, dated 22.04.1994, and as per the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015, dated 17.08.2015, and in the case of District Collector/Chairman Vs. M.L.Singh and others dated 06.02.1998 and as per the orders of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.33936 of 2011 and batch dated 02.05.2018 and consequently direct the respondents to pay the pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioners on attaining the age of superannuation and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts: Petitioners were working under the control of respondent No.3 on a consolidated pay of Rs.200/- per month. Petitioner No.1 was a Helper and has been working from 15.07.1985; petitioner No.2 was a Barber and has been working from 01.03.1985 and petitioner No.3 was a Helper and has been working from 01.03.1985. Proceedings were issued in 1991 stating that petitioners, who were working on consolidated pay in Government Homes and Hostels, were to be paid remuneration of Rs.740/- per month i.e., minimum of pay scale applicable to last grade employees. They were entitled for Dearness Allowance (DA), House Rent Allowance (HRA) and City Compensatory Allowance (CCA) at the rates admissible at the respective places. Respondent No.3, vide Letter No.B/FTW/523/2016, dated 05.07.2016, submitted proposals for regularization of services of petitioners under G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Dept., dated 22.04.1994. Respondent No.3 stated that 12 Class-IV regular posts are vacant and the details were submitted. Respondent No.2 vide proceedings No.A1/1144/2015, dated 10.07.2017, regularized the services of petitioners against vacant posts in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, in the pay scale of Rs.13,000-40,270 in PRC-2015. 2.1 The case of the petitioners is that they are eligible for regularization of services for completion of five years of service with the available vacancies. Respondent No.2 vide proceedings No.A1/1144/2015, dated 10.07.2017, regularized the services of petitioners against vacant posts in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, in the pay scale of Rs.13,000-40,270 in PRC-2015. 2.1 The case of the petitioners is that they are eligible for regularization of services for completion of five years of service with the available vacancies. Petitioners aver that their services are to be regularized from the date of availability of vacancies as per the conditions in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, and that their regularization from the year 2007 is bad in law. Petitioners are seeking pension and pensionary benefits from the date of availability of vacancies. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The Director, Department for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Senior Citizens and Transgender Persons, TG, Hyderabad, filed counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the vacancies arose in the year 2016 only i.e., on the date of submission of proposals by respondent No.3 i.e., 05.07.2016 and as such the services of petitioners shall be considered from the date of proposals of respondent No.3 i.e., 05.07.2016 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners were all last grade employees working as Helper, Barber and Helper and have been working from the year 1985 (from the months of March and July). It is further submitted that petitioners were appointed on a consolidated pay of Rs.200/- per month while they were employed in Government Homes and Hostels and their remuneration was raised to that of Rs.740/- in the year 1991 and were entitled for DA, HRA, CCA at the rates admissible at the respective places. It is submitted that respondent No.3 vide letter, dated 05.07.2016, submitted proposals for regularization of services of petitioners under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. Pursuant to such proposals, petitioners services were regularized by the respondents on 10.07.2017 in the available vacant posts. It is further submitted that petitioner No.3 retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in May, 2020. It is further submitted that petitioners are entitled to be regularized within five years from the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. 4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.33936 of 2011 and batch to buttress the contention that the petitioners are entitled for pension and pensionary benefits from the date of completion of five years on or before 25.11.1993. 5. 4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.33936 of 2011 and batch to buttress the contention that the petitioners are entitled for pension and pensionary benefits from the date of completion of five years on or before 25.11.1993. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Services – III appearing on behalf the respondents submits that petitioners were appointed in the year 1985. Petitioner No.1 joined on 15.07.1985; petitioner No.2 joined on 01.03.1985 and petitioner No.3 joined on 01.03.1985. It is submitted that on the proposals of respondent No.2 for regularization of services of full time workers, respondent No.1 vide G.O.Rt.No.127, dated 03.07.2017, regularized the services of nine full time workers in the Government Homes and Hostels under the control of respondent No.3 including the petitioners against clear vacant posts mentioned against their names vide G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. It is also submitted that clear vacancies arose in the year 2016 only i.e., on the date of submission of proposals by respondent No.3 i.e., on 05.07.2016 and as such the services of petitioners for regularization were considered from 05.07.2016 and not earlier. 5.1 It is further submitted that petitioners’ services were regularized in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 and the regularization is in terms and conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.212. Petitioners should be regularized in substantive vacancies by the appointing authorities. Learned Government Pleader has supported the letter/proposal, dated 05.07.2016, and contended that there is no infirmity in the regularization proceedings issued. It is lastly submitted by learned Government Pleader that petitioners, having accepted the pay scale which was revised in the year 2015, had no grievance till filing of the writ petition in the year 2018. 6. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 7. It is lastly submitted by learned Government Pleader that petitioners, having accepted the pay scale which was revised in the year 2015, had no grievance till filing of the writ petition in the year 2018. 6. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 7. Services of petitioner No.3 - N. Shankariah engaged as a Helper on consolidated pay of Rs.200/- per month in Home for the Blind, Tolichowki w.e.f. 01.03.1985 were ratified by proceedings No.DWH/A1/955/85 dated 16.07.1985, services of petitioner No.1 - P. Meenaiah engaged as Helper on consolidated pay of Rs.200/- per month in Hostel attached to School for the Blind, Darushiffa w.e.f. 15.07.1985 were ratified by proceedings No.DWH/A1/955/85 dated 16.07.1985 and services of petitioner No.2 - N. Shanker engaged as Barber on consolidated pay of Rs.200/- per month in Home for Orthopedically Handicapped, Malakpet, w.e.f. 01.03.1985 were ratified vide proceedings No.DWH/A1/955/85 dated 16.07.1985 by office of Director for Welfare of Handicapped, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. By proceedings No.D/447/85 dated 21.05.1991, scale of pay for workers engaged on consolidated pay of Rs.200/- per month in the Government Homes and Hostels stood raised to Rs.740/- per month i.e., the minimum of the pay scale applicable to the last grade employees and were entitled to DA, HRA and CCA on the above remuneration at the rates admissible at the respective places. In the said proceedings, the names of 39 workers date of appointment, date of completion 5 years of service in the daily wages posts, date from which the workers shall get the consolidated pay of Rs.740/- in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.73, dated 16.04.1991, were furnished. It is pertinent to note that in the said order, there are five columns and the 4th column is with respect to date of completion of five years of service of the 39 employees in which petitioner No.1’s name is listed at Serial No.25; petitioner No.2’s name is listed at Serial No.18 and petitioner No.3’s name is listed at Serial No.17 and in column No.5, the date from which the worker was to be paid remuneration of Rs.740/- is also mentioned. These proceedings are of considerable significance for the reason that by 28.02.1990 and 31.10.1990, petitioners completed five years of service, as per proceedings. Petitioners are eligible to be considered as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. 8. These proceedings are of considerable significance for the reason that by 28.02.1990 and 31.10.1990, petitioners completed five years of service, as per proceedings. Petitioners are eligible to be considered as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. 8. Relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 is as follows: “… Government accordingly decided that the services of those persons continuing as on 25th November, 1993 having completed a continuous minimum period of 5 years of service on or before 25-11-1993 shall be regularised in substantive vacancies by the appointing authorities subject to fulfillment of the following conditions: (1) The persons appointed should possess the qualification prescribed as per rules in force as on the date from which his/her services have to be regularised. (2) They should be within the age limits as on the date of appointment as NMR/Daily wage employee. (3) The rule of reservation wherever applicable will be followed and back-log will be set-off against future vacancies. (4) Sponsoring of candidates from Employment Exchange is relaxed. (5) 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. (6) In the case of Workcharged Establishment, where there will be no clear vacancies, because of the fact that the expenditure on Workcharged is at fixed percentage of P.S. charges and as soon as the work is over, the services of workcharged establishment will have to be terminated, they shall be adjusted in the other departments, District Offices provided there are clear vacancies of Last Grade Service. 3. All the Departments of Secretariat/Heads of Departments are requested to process the cases of absorption/regularisation of services of N.M.Rs./Daily Wage Employees etc. in pursuance of above scheme and obtain the clearance of Government in Finance and Planning (FW. PC. III) Department before orders are issued for such regularisation or absorption. …” 9. A perusal of the G.O., makes it clear that persons continuing as on 25.11.1993 and having completed a continuous minimum period of five years on or before 25.11.1993 shall be regularized in substantive vacancies. 10. PC. III) Department before orders are issued for such regularisation or absorption. …” 9. A perusal of the G.O., makes it clear that persons continuing as on 25.11.1993 and having completed a continuous minimum period of five years on or before 25.11.1993 shall be regularized in substantive vacancies. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.33936 of 2011 and batch, dated 02.05.2018, dealt with the scope of regularization of services under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, wherein all the services of the employees were regularized, but they were seeking benefit of such regularization from earlier dates, which is similar to the case on record. The Division Bench in order dated 02.05.2018 held as follows: “… 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 to 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 dearly 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.217 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, 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. 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, 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. The question of the State Exchequer being saddled with additional expenditure in relation to such regularisation 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 benefit of such service only for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits can hardly be said to be an onerous burden either on the State or the State Exchequer. Having utilised their services all along, the State and its instrumentalities cannot now turn their back on the loyal services rendered by these employees. The learned Government Pleader would also point out that some of the O.A.s/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.SRINIVASULU¹ 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.SRINIVASULU¹ 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. The narration supra in relation to this very batch of cases demonstrates that the Tribunal gave the benefit of B.SRINIVASULU¹ 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.SRINIVASULU¹, 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. On the above analysis, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the authorities concerned to extend the benefit of B.SRINIVASULU¹ 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.” 11. It is pertinent to note that W.P.No.6984 of 2018, one of the matters in the batch of writ petitions decided by the Division Bench by order dated 02.05.2018 was carried to the Hon’ble Apex Court vide SLP(C) No.9244 of 2019 by the State and the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petitions vide order dated 23.07.2024 held as follows: “4. We have been informed that G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22nd April, 1994 and the G.O.Ms. issued subsequent to the impugned judgment and orders, were issued for the purpose of regularization. 5. We have perused the impugned judgments as well as contents of the G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22nd April, 1994, 533 dated 29th November, 2011, 170 dated 19th March, 2018 and 171 dated 19th March, 2018, 60 and 61 dated 08th October, 2021 and have also perused the judgments cited before us including the decision in the case of “A.Manjula Bhashini and Others vs. Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited and Another, 2009 (8) SCC 431 ”; District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L.Singh & Ors, 2009 (8) SCC 480 and B.Srinivasulu S/o. Padmanbaiah Vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation Rep. Nellore Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner, Nellore Dist., Andhra Pradesh, 2021 (13) SCC 460 and lastly, the order dated 12th July, 2024 passed by this Court in SLP (Civil) No.14973 of 2024, “Government of Andhra Pradesh (now Govt. of Telangana) and Ors. vs. G. Jagannadham and Ors.” and are of the firm view that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh as also the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amravati. 6. We are further of the opinion that contrary to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the view taken in the impugned judgment and orders is in line with the decision of this Court in the case of A.Manjula Bhashini and Others (supra). 7. The Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal are accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, are disposed of. 8. The petitioners-State Governments are granted time upto 31st December, 2024 to implement the impugned judgment and orders.” 12. Petitioners services were regularized from 05.07.2016 working under control of Assistant director, welfare of Disabled & Senior Citizens, Ranga Reddy District, vide Lr.No.B/FTW/523/2016 dated 05.07.2016. Petitioners’ services were engaged from the year 1985. By the date of regularization, petitioners completed more than three decades of service. These facts are not in dispute. A Division Bench of this Court in a similar issue (supra), held that the benefit(s) are to be extended to the employees by reckoning their services from the date of completion of five years in service on or before 25.11.1993 for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits and it was made clear that the employees were not entitled for consequential benefits i.e., arrears of pay, notional fixation of pay and seniority etc., from the date of completion of five years in service per G.O.Ms.No.212. This Court is bound by the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court as confirmed by the Apex Court. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that petitioners are entitled to be extended the benefit by reckoning their services from the date of completion of five years in service on or before 25.11.1993 (Ex.P3, proceedings dated 21.05.1991) for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that petitioners are entitled to be extended the benefit by reckoning their services from the date of completion of five years in service on or before 25.11.1993 (Ex.P3, proceedings dated 21.05.1991) for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. The respondent authorities shall extend the benefits to the petitioners for the purpose of their pension and pensionary benefits only and pass such orders within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.