ORDER : 1. The present writ petition is filed questioning the order in Rc.No.738/2004/S1 dated 22.07.2025 issued by the 5th respondent dispensing with the services of the Petitioner as Forest Beat Officer on contract basis as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Petitioner was initially appointed as Forest Beat Officer on contract basis and the same was extended from time to time. Subsequently, pursuant to Act No.30 of 2023, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.114 dated 21.10.2023 framing guidelines for Regularization of Contract Personnel in the Departments of the Government of A.P. As per the said G.O., Petitioner is entitled for Regularization as he was appointed prior to 02.06.2014 and was continuing as on 21.10.2023. 3. Subsequently, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests submitted proposals for regularization of 151 contract employees working in the Forest Department. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.22 Environment, Forest, Science & Technology (Sec.V) Department dated 16.03.2024 regularized services of 119 contract employees leaving 32 employees. The reason for non-consideration of the case of the Petitioner for regularisation was on account of ‘e-KYC’ not done due to CFMS ID updation. Subsequently, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests sent proposal of the Petitioner along with remaining 32 employees for regularization on 07.02.2025. In the interregnum, while the case is under consideration, the 5th Respondent passed impugned order dated 22.07.2025 dispensing with the services of the Petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the case of the Petitioner is under active consideration for regularization and in the event the Respondent No.1 State regularised the services of the Petitioners, the Petitioner would be entitled for continuous service till the age of 62 years. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader on instructions would submit that the Petitioner being a contract employee cannot dictate as to the age of retirement and it is for the Department to continue his services or not. The further contention is that in the event the services of the Petitioner are regularized, the consequential benefit is extended to the Petitioner. 6. Having heard the respective submissions and considering the fact that this Court in a similar case, which is similarly placed as that of Petitioner had passed orders directing continuance of the Petitioner therein in service as the case for regularisation is under active consideration. 7. 6. Having heard the respective submissions and considering the fact that this Court in a similar case, which is similarly placed as that of Petitioner had passed orders directing continuance of the Petitioner therein in service as the case for regularisation is under active consideration. 7. In that view, the same benefit is extended to the Petitioner and the Respondents are directed to continue the Petitioner till a decision is arrived at by the Respondent-State with regard to regularization of the services of the Petitioner. 8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.