ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:- “to pass a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction declaring the inaction of the respondents in not paying pension and pensionary benefits to the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and direct the respondents to pay Gratuity in accordance with payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and further direct the respondents to release the gratuity along with interest at the rate 12 % per annum.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on 17.10.1989 as T.G.T. Bio-science Teacher on ad-hoc basis in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Residential Schools and rendered 23½ years of service in the said institution. For regularization of service, petitioner along with similarly-situated employees filed Writ Petition No.15297 of 1993 wherein this Court passed interim order dated 01.07.1994 to continue them in service. Respondent No.1 issued proceedings dated 17.06.1995 regularizing the service of petitioner along with others. Further W.P.MP.No.3794 of 1997 in Writ Petition No.15297 of 1993 was filed to pay the increments and all consequential benefits attached to the scale and the same was allowed by interim order dated 28.04.1997. Implementing the said interim order, respondents issued proceedings to that extent. Thereafter, petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 25.05.2003, however, he was not paid pension or pensionary benefits and also pay revision. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 4. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the petition and contended that petitioner and others were allowed the benefits of the increments and consequential benefits attached to the scale without their regularization. This Court while disposing of the writ petition No.15297 of 1993, dated 26.10.1998 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and others for regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Later review W.P.M.P.No.27164 of 2000 was filed. Since, the respondents have not complied with the order dated 26.10.1998 in W.P.M.P.No.3794 of 1997 in W.P.No.15297 of 1993 filed contempt case and the same was dismissed on 29.11.2004. Accordingly, proposals were submitted to Government for regularization of their services. Later review W.P.M.P.No.27164 of 2000 was filed. Since, the respondents have not complied with the order dated 26.10.1998 in W.P.M.P.No.3794 of 1997 in W.P.No.15297 of 1993 filed contempt case and the same was dismissed on 29.11.2004. Accordingly, proposals were submitted to Government for regularization of their services. Later Government issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.98, Education (Govt.I) dated 28.08.2000 and permitted to regularize the services of the three petitioners vide proceedings dated 27.01.2001 in the above writ petition, who have fulfilled the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance dated 22.04.1994. With regard to other petitioners, the Government in their G.O.Ms.No.99, Education (Prog.I) dated 28.08.2000 issued order stating that they are not having continuous service of five years as on 25.11.1993 and not possible to relax any conditions of the scheme formulated in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 which is statutory regulation in view of the amendment to the A.P.Regulation Act 2 of 94, which is amended by Act 3 of 98 and Act 27 of 98 and the same was also upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3702 of 2006 and batch and rejected the proposal for regularization of 21 individuals including petitioner. He further submits that Government issued G.O.Ms.No.155, Education Department dated 28.11.2008 for extending the benefit of RPS 1999 and 2005 to 21 ad-hoc Teachers working in erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational Institutions Society on par with those who are working in Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society and also submits that grant of time scales would not confer any right for regularization of services or otherwise, as the petitioner is not a regular employee and he is not entitled for terminal benefits. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that during the pendency of writ petition, petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 seeking permission to amend the main prayer by adding the words ‘gratuity in accordance with payment of Gratuity Act,1972 and further to direct the respondents to release the gratuity along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum’. This Court by order dated 23.03.2023 ordered the said application as prayed for. 6. Subsequently, learned counsel for petitioner filed reply to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 relying upon catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1. Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , 2. This Court by order dated 23.03.2023 ordered the said application as prayed for. 6. Subsequently, learned counsel for petitioner filed reply to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 relying upon catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1. Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , 2. Allahabad Bank v. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association, (2010) 2 SCC 44 , 3. Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam v. Mujib Ullah Khan, (2019) 6 SCC 103 , 4. Ahmedabad (P) Primary Teachers’ Association v. Administrative Officer, (2004) 1 SCC 755 and Union Public Service Commission v. Dr. Jamuna Kurup, (2008) 11 SCC 10 . 7. Today when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for petitioner placed a copy of the order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi in Writ Petition No.30389 of 2015, dated 19.07.2022 wherein it is held at paragraph Nos.10, 11 and 12 which reads as follows; “10. It is pertinent to mention here that, in such cases where recruitment is by regular process of selection, after long years of service, regularization cannot be denied solely on the ground that the posts were not sanctioned after extracting service all through. The State as a Model Employer ought not resort to such practice and cannot take such a stand which is arbitrary and denies the benefit of long years of service especially when their appointment is made by following the due process of law. In so far as payment of Gratuity is concerned, it is a statutory provision and has to be compulsorily paid together with interest. So also the petitioner should be paid encashment of Earned Leave for 285 days which is at his credit and he had worked 29 years uninterruptedly as all the rules applicable to Government service are also made applicable to this Corporation. Non sanctioning of post would not have any effect as he worked for 29 years. Even otherwise sanctioning of a post is an administrative exercise and it is not in the control of the petitioner. The petitioner having rendered continuous service as defined under the payment of Gratuity Act for more than five years, is entitled for gratuity and any pase on the part of the Government in not sanctioning a post or non-inclusion in the staffing pattern is untenable. 11. The petitioner having rendered continuous service as defined under the payment of Gratuity Act for more than five years, is entitled for gratuity and any pase on the part of the Government in not sanctioning a post or non-inclusion in the staffing pattern is untenable. 11. This Court further observed that, the respondents are liable to pay gratuity as they have extracted work from the petitioner and the payment is a statutory one. Further, the Gratuity Act itself does not distinguish between any service rendered in a sanctioned post or otherwise but makes it clear that gratuity is payable when once a person renders a minimum period of five years of continuous service. In this case, the petitioner has rendered nearly 30 years of service and at this stage, after nearly 30 years of service, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to state that the petitioner has not been appointed in a sanctioned post. Further, the petitioner is entitled to leave encashment of his earned leave as per A.P. Leave Rules 1993 which has been made applicable to Corporation. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the submissions made by both the learned counsels and in view of the catena of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited above, this Court is of the considered view that, in the interest of justice, directing the respondents to pay gratuity to the petitioner together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of his superannuation i.e., 30.04.2015 as per the Payment of Gratuity Act. Further, directing the respondents to pay the encashment of Earned Leave for 285 days consequent on his retirement as Technical Work Inspector/Assistant Engineer I/c. on 30.04.2015, as he has rendered 29 years of regular service, in accordance with the Rules applicable to him within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 8. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that, in the interest of justice, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to pay gratuity to petitioner together with interest @10% p.a. from the date of his superannuation i.e., 25.05.2013 as per the Payment of Gratuity Act. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that, in the interest of justice, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to pay gratuity to petitioner together with interest @10% p.a. from the date of his superannuation i.e., 25.05.2013 as per the Payment of Gratuity Act. Further, directing the respondents to pay the encashment of Earned Leave in accordance with the Rules applicable to him, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.