ORDER : 1. Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education. 2. Prayer sought in the Writ Petition is as under: "Hence in the interest of Justice, it is humbly it is humbly prayed to issue a Writ order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the petitioner service with retrospective effect from the date of 25.11.1993 as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dt.22.4.1994 and in terms of Honourable Apex Court Judgment in terms of B. Srinivasulu Vs Nellore Municipal Corporation in Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015 dated 17.08.2015 with all consequential benefits by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 23.02.2022 issued by the 2 nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, discrimination and contrary to orders of this Honourable Court and Honourable Apex Court apart from violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to extend the benefit of regularization of the service of the petitioner with retrospective effect from the date of 25.11.1993 in terms of Honourable Apex Court Judgment in terms of B. Srinivasulu Vs Nellore Municipal Corporation in Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015 dated 17.08.2015 with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner 3. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the Writ Petitioner has joined as Assistant Store Keeper on or about 15.11.1998 in the Respondent No.4 College (The S.K.R. College for Women, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District) for a salary of Rs.180/- per month; that the Writ Petitioner has filed W.P.No.2518 of 2007 along with two other persons before this Court for seeking regularisation; that, vide Order dated 09.10.2009 (Ex.P.6), the learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to dispose of the said Writ Petition with a direction to the Government (Respondent No.1) and the Director of Collegiate Education (Respondent No.2) to consider the question as to whether the Writ Petitioners, who are working in the hostel are eligible to be considered for regularisation with a further direction to pass appropriate orders within three months; that in pursuance of the directions of the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2518 of 2007 dated 09.10.2009, the Official Respondents have issued Memo No.2440/CE.II-1/2007-7 dated 24.03.2011 rejecting the claim of the Writ Petitioners; that having been aggrieved by the Memo dated 24.03.2011, the Writ Petitioner and two others have filed W.P.No.11976 of 2011 seeking regularisation as per the G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 24.04.1994. Learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to allow W.P.No.11976 of 2011, vide Order dated 05.03.2012. By setting aside the impugned Memo No.2440/CE.II- 1/2007-7 dated 24.03.2011, the Learned Single Judge, while allowing the Writ Petition was pleased to remand the matter to the Respondents with a direction to consider the matter afresh taking into consideration the definition of the Education Institution and pass appropriate Orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order. 4. 4. It is further submitted that, due to non-compliance of the Order of the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11976 of 2011 dated 05.03.2012, the Writ Petitioner along with two others were compelled to file contempt case bearing C.C.No.1357 of 2012; that the Learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the contempt case, vide Order dated 01.04.2014, with certain directions; that in pursuance of the said directions, the Official Respondents have regularised the Writ Petitioner with effect from 11.09.2017; that since the date of birth of the Writ Petitioner is 03.09.1960, the Writ Petitioner has superannuated on 30.09.2020; that from the date of joining in the Respondent No.4 College from 15.11.1988 till the date of regularization dated 11.09.2017, the Writ Petitioner has put in service of 28 years, 9 months and 25 days, without being regularised. This apart, since the regularization was done only on 11.09.2017, upto the date of the Writ Petitioner’s superannuation dated 30.09.2020, the Writ Petitioner’s service is hardly for a period of 3 years and 9 months, thereby disentitling the Writ Petitioner from getting pension. 5. It is further submitted that on 25.04.2020 (Ex.P.3), few months before retirement, the Writ Petitioner has made a Representation to the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein requesting them to count the un-aided service of 28 years along with aided service for 3 years and 9 months for sanction of pension etc.,; that the Respondent No.4 had addressed a letter to the Respondent No.3 on 29.04.2020 (which is in response to the Representation of the Writ Petitioner dated 25.04.2020(Ex.P.3)), thereby marking a copy to the Respondent No.2 with a request to forward the Application of the Writ Petitioner for favourable consideration and necessary action. As there was no response from the Official Respondents to the Representation made by the Writ Petitioner dated 25.04.2020 (Ex.P.3) and as the Writ Petitioner is about to superannuate on or about 30.09.2020, the Writ Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking to reckon the regularisation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 24.04.1994 (Ex.P.8) from the date of her initial appointment. 6. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the Writ Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Sore Keeper on 15.11.1988 and had completed five years without any break in service by 14.11.1993. Therefore, as per G.O.Ms.No.212, the Writ Petitioner shall be required to be regularised from 15.11.1993 onwards. 6. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the Writ Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Sore Keeper on 15.11.1988 and had completed five years without any break in service by 14.11.1993. Therefore, as per G.O.Ms.No.212, the Writ Petitioner shall be required to be regularised from 15.11.1993 onwards. He would submit that the first Writ Petition was filed by the Writ Petitioner way-back in the year 2007, wherein the Learned Single Judge has disposed of the Writ Petition on 09.10.2009 with a direction to consider the case of the Writ Petitioner within three months. He would also submit that the Writ Petitioner was once again constrained to file W.P.No.11976 of 2011 for implementation of the G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 24.04.1994, which was allowed on 05.03.2012. 7. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that due to non-consideration of the directions rendered by this Court in W.P.No.11976 of 2011, the Writ Petitioner was constrained to file contempt case bearing C.C.No.1357 of 2011, which was eventually disposed on 01.04.2014. He would also submit that, even thereafter, it took almost three years for the Respondents to regularise the Writ Petitioner. He would submit that reckoning the period of regularisation from 11.09.2017 instead of 15.11.1993, is not only arbitrary, illegal but also perverse on the part of the Official Respondents. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondents 8. The S.K.R. College for Women, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District (Respondent No.4) has filed the Counter Affidavit on or about 17.09.2020 stating that as per the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, an individual having minimum qualifying service for sanction of service pension is 10 years of Grant-in-Aid service without any break. Whereas the Writ Petitioner has only qualifying service of 3 years 1 month and 25 days from the date of absorption/joining in Grant-in-Aid post in the college. It is also stated that as per the G.O.Ms.No.653 Finance (Pen-1) Department, dated 22.09.2004, the A.P State Government have introduced CPS to all the employees recruited on or after 01.09.2004 on the same lines of Government of India’s New Pension System. 9. Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education would submit that, in view of the change in the legal position, the Writ Petitioner is not entitled for pension by reckoning 15.11.1993 as the date of regularisation of service. 9. Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education would submit that, in view of the change in the legal position, the Writ Petitioner is not entitled for pension by reckoning 15.11.1993 as the date of regularisation of service. Learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Registrar General of India and Another Vs. V. Thippa Setty and Others : (1998) 8 SCC 690 and in Managing Director, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer and Another Vs. Chiggan Lal and Others : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1351 . This Court has perused these two decisions. At the outset, this Court opines that these two decisions have no relevance to the present case. Analysis: 10. The above facts would clearly indicate that the G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 24.04.1994 has withstood the legal scrutiny, as it was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A. Manjula Bhashini and Others Vs. Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited and another : (2009) 8 SCC 431 . Admittedly, the Writ Petitioner has joined into service of Respondent No.4 College on 15.11.1988 as Assistant Store Keeper for a meager salary of Rs.180/- per month. For the first time, the Writ Petitioner has filed the Writ Petition in the year 2007, vide W.P.No.2518 of 2007. Despite the directions given by the Learned Single Judge on 09.10.2009, the Writ Petitioner was made to run from pillar to post and approached this Court once again on two other occasions (by filing W.P.No.11976 of 2011 and C.C.No.1357 of 2012). Admittedly, even after contempt case bearing C.C.No.1357 of 2012 came to be disposed of on 01.04.2014, the Official Respondents took another three more years to issue the orders of regularisation in favour of the Writ Petitioner with effect from 11.09.2017. It is noticed by this Court that starting from the year 2007 (from the year of filing the first Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.2518 of 2007) till the date of regularisation, nearly about 11 years have passed. The text of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 24.04.1994 (Ex.P.8) is very clear to the effect that from 22.04.1994 onwards if a daily wager has put in continuous service without any break of five years thereafter, he would be entitled for regularisation from the said date onwards. The text of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 24.04.1994 (Ex.P.8) is very clear to the effect that from 22.04.1994 onwards if a daily wager has put in continuous service without any break of five years thereafter, he would be entitled for regularisation from the said date onwards. It is the contention of the Writ Petitioner that on the date the G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 24.04.1994 came into effect, he was already in service, without regularisation, and therefore, the G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 24.04.1994 would squarely apply. 11. Even though the G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 24.04.1994 has came into effect on 22.04.1994, it transpires from the record that the Writ Petitioner has approached the Writ Court for the first time only in the year 2007. The Writ Court, after considering the facts of the case filed by the Writ Petitioner and two others, was pleased to dispose of the same with certain directions. Therefore, from the date on which G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 24.04.1994 came into effect upto year 2007, the Writ Petitioner has not raised his little finger to assert his right which flows out of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 24.04.1994. However, thereafter i.e., since 2007 onwards, the Writ Petitioner could not get his legitimate due only due to lack of empathy and indulgence by the Official Respondents. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the date of regularisation as sought by the Writ Petitioner i.e., from 15.11.1993 cannot be accepted. As the Writ Petitioner did not raise his little finger from 22.04.1994 upto the year 2007. The period thereafter i.e., from 2007 onwards till the date of his regularisation on 11.09.2017, this Court is of the opinion, that the entire delay that has been occasioned has to be attributed to the inaction on the part of the Official Respondents. The Official Respondents cannot take undue advantage of their own wrongs by stating that the Writ Petitioner is deemed to have been regularised on 11.09.2017, particularly, having regard to the long battle which the Writ Petitioner had to tread. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petitioner is deemed to have been regularised from the date of filing of the Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.2518 of 2007 for the purpose of reckoning regularisation. Although the Writ Petitioner may not be entitled for any arrears of pay as being treated as an employee working in Grant-in- Aid post. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petitioner is deemed to have been regularised from the date of filing of the Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.2518 of 2007 for the purpose of reckoning regularisation. Although the Writ Petitioner may not be entitled for any arrears of pay as being treated as an employee working in Grant-in- Aid post. The said period from the date of filing of W.P.No.2518 of 2007 shall be reckoned for the purpose of applying the pension scheme to the Writ Petitioner. Admittedly, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide G.O.Ms.No.653 Finance (Pen-1) Department, dated 22.09.2004 have introduced CPS to all the employees recruited on or after 01.09.2004 on the same lines of Government of India’s New Pension System, as stated in Para- 13 of the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.4. 12. In the above premise, the impugned Proceeding dated 23.03.2022 bearing Rc.No.14/Ser.II.A/2022 issued by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education is hereby quashed. Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the above observations and directions. No Order as to Costs. 13. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.