ORDER : Pulla Karthik, J. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and to declare the impugned cancellation proceedings orders in Memo No.Estt/SE/IC/KDD/AB /E3/WP No.700/43E, dt. 01-02-2024 of the 4 th respondent, is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory without any application of mind and also in violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and further declare the same as bad in law and set aside the same though there was a clear orders from the Govt. vide orders in Memo No.2874/Ser.I/A2/2020-7, dt.8-11-2021 and Endorsement No.ENC(Admn)/EE(T)/DEE 1(T)/NTPA/B3/2376/2015 Vol-II, dt. 9-11-2021 of the 2 nd respondent, and consequently direct the respondents to provide the work to the petitioners on Daily Wage basis as NMRs under the control of the 5 th respondent with all consequential benefits and to pass…” 2. In the present Writ Petition, when the matter came for Admission, on 21.03.2024, this Court passed the following order: “Learned Government Pleader for Services appearing on behalf of the respondents seeks time to get instructions. Post on 28.03.2024. Till then, there shall be interim suspension of operation of impugned cancellation proceedings in Memo No.Estt/SE/IC/KDD/ AB/E3/WP.No.700/43E, dated 01.02.2024 issued by respondent No.4.” 3. According to the petitioners, the respondents did not comply with the aforesaid interim order. Therefore, the petitioners filed Contempt Case No.943 of 2024 for violation of the Court’s order dated 21.03.2024. 4. Therefore, both the Contempt Case and the Writ Petition are taken up together for disposal. 5. Heard Sri C. Raja Shekar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services-II for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners had worked as Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) workers in different divisions under the control of respondent No.3 during the period 1980 to 1984. While they were working, their services were cancelled on the ground of non-availability of work. Subsequently, 662 similarly placed NMR workers approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing W.P. No.793 of 1987, while the petitioners herein filed W.P. No.97 of 1988. While they were working, their services were cancelled on the ground of non-availability of work. Subsequently, 662 similarly placed NMR workers approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing W.P. No.793 of 1987, while the petitioners herein filed W.P. No.97 of 1988. W.P. No.793 of 1987 and batch were disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by an order dated 25.08.1987, recording the statement made by the State Government that the petitioners therein would be provided employment as daily wage workers on a preferential basis in various irrigation projects and would be considered for absorption against future vacancies and expressing the hope that the same would be implemented expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks. On similar lines, W.P. No.97 of 1988 filed by the petitioners herein was disposed of on 01.12.1994 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Despite the said order, the petitioners were constrained to make repeated representations and correspondence to the Government for implementation of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Ultimately, after a delay of nearly 18 years, the Government took a lenient view and issued proceedings in different spells during the years 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2016, implementing the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Pursuant thereto, several similarly situated NMR workers were provided employment and are presently working in different divisions in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. (b) It is further submitted that the petitioners also approached respondent No.3 by submitting representations seeking implementation of the order passed in W.P. No.97 of 1988, enclosing all necessary documents. As instructed by respondent No.3, the petitioners submitted their service particulars and supporting records. Upon verification of the same, respondent No.3 furnished a detailed report to respondent No.2 for taking further action. Consequently, respondent No.2 issued Memo dated 10.05.2018, referring to Government Memo No.(E)16092/Ser.V-2/2003-15 dated 27.01.2005, wherein instructions were issued that the Writ Petitioners in W.P. No.97 of 1988 shall be provided daily wage employment on preferential basis, subject to their having worked earlier. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.3 issued proceedings dated 21.03.2018, furnishing a detailed report regarding the genuineness of the petitioners’ candidature to respondent No.2. In the said report, respondent No.3 categorically stated that the documents produced by the petitioners were found to be genuine. However, respondent No.3, ignoring his own report, issued the proceedings dated 23.05.2018, rejecting the petitioners’ claim for daily wage employment as NMRs. In the said report, respondent No.3 categorically stated that the documents produced by the petitioners were found to be genuine. However, respondent No.3, ignoring his own report, issued the proceedings dated 23.05.2018, rejecting the petitioners’ claim for daily wage employment as NMRs. It is contended that the said rejection is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the principles of natural justice. (c) It is further submitted that the Government Memo dated 27.01.2005, which was issued for implementation of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various Writ Petitions, nowhere states or mandates that the petitioners must produce any genuineness certificate nor does it make such production compulsory. However, by relying upon the said Government Memo dated 27.01.2005, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioners, which action is highly illegal, arbitrary and without any basis, and therefore the rejection on that ground is wholly misconceived. (d) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P. No.700 of 2020 and after hearing both sides, this Court, by an order dated 09.01.2020, had set aside the rejection order dated 23.05.2018 following the earlier judgment in W.P. No.46982 of 2018 dated 02.08.2019 and directed respondent No.2 therein to consider the recommendations made by respondent No.3 therein on 24.03.2018. It is submitted that when the orders passed in W.P. No.46982 of 2018 were not implemented, the affected candidates approached the Lokayukta by filing a complaint. Pursuant thereto, the Lokayukta issued notice to the Government and in response, the Government issued Memo No.2874/Ser.I/A2/2020-7 dated 08.11.2021, directing respondent No.2 to implement the orders of this Court. In turn, respondent No.2 issued proceedings dated 09.11.2021 directing respondent No.3 to implement the orders passed by this Court in reference to Lokayukta Complaint No.826/2021/B1. In view of the same, respondent No.3 issued proceedings dated 20.10.2023 providing daily wage employment as NMRs to the petitioners in W.P. No.700 of 2020. Learned counsel further submits that after obtaining necessary permissions from respondent Nos.1 to 3, the petitioners were finally issued proceedings dated 22.12.2023 by respondent No.4, allotting them to Irrigation Division No.4, Kodad, and they joined duty under the control of respondent No.5. Since then, the petitioners have been continuously discharging their duties as NMRs on daily wage basis. (e) It is further submitted that while things stood thus, on 27.01.2024, the petitioners were orally prevented from attending duties by respondent No.5. Since then, the petitioners have been continuously discharging their duties as NMRs on daily wage basis. (e) It is further submitted that while things stood thus, on 27.01.2024, the petitioners were orally prevented from attending duties by respondent No.5. Upon enquiry, the petitioners came to know that the proceedings dated 19.01.2024 were issued by respondent No.2, followed by proceedings dated 01.02.2024 of respondent No.3, and ultimately respondent No.4 issued the impugned proceedings dated 01.02.2024, cancelling the earlier proceedings dated 20.10.2023 and directing that no work be offered to the petitioners in W.P. No.700 of 2020 until receipt of further implementation orders from the Government. Learned counsel submits that the said cancellation proceedings were issued in a highly arbitrary manner, without application of mind, and in complete disregard of the Government Memo dated 08.11.2021 and proceedings dated 09.11.2021, pursuant to which employment was already granted. Therefore, it is contended that, from any angle, the impugned proceedings dated 01.02.2024 issued by respondent No.4 are illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the principles of natural justice. Hence, learned counsel prays this Court to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 01.02.2024. 7. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioners had earlier filed W.P. No.700 of 2020 questioning the rejection order dated 23.05.2018 passed by the Superintending Engineer, NSLBC O&M Circle, Miryalaguda. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court on 09.01.2020, following the order dated 02.08.2019 passed in W.P. No.46982 of 2018, by setting aside the rejection proceedings dated 23.05.2018 and directing respondent No.2 therein to consider the recommendations made by respondent No.3 on 24.03.2018 and to pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks. Subsequently, the Government issued Memo dated 08.11.2021 directing implementation of the order dated 02.08.2019 passed in W.P. No.46982 of 2018 filed by G. Yadagiri and seven others, for providing daily wage employment in terms of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P. No.97 of 1988. According to the respondents, the said Government Memo was issued solely for the purpose of implementing the orders of this Court in W.P. No.46982 of 2018 and did not extend to the petitioners in W.P. No.700 of 2020. It is further contended that, relying upon the implementation which was extended to the petitioners in W.P. No.46982 of 2018, the petitioners herein approached respondent No.3 seeking similar relief. It is further contended that, relying upon the implementation which was extended to the petitioners in W.P. No.46982 of 2018, the petitioners herein approached respondent No.3 seeking similar relief. Consequently, respondent No.3 issued proceedings dated 20.10.2023 directing to provide daily wage employment to the petitioners and issued instructions to respondent No.4, who in turn allotted the petitioners to respondent No.5 vide proceedings dated 22.12.2023. While so, respondent No.2 addressed a communication dated 19.01.2024 instructing respondent No.3 to ensure that necessary Government implementation orders were required before extending daily wage employment to the petitioners in W.P. No.700 of 2020 and further directed verification of the names, age and earlier period of work mentioned in W.P. No.97 of 1988 with the particulars furnished in W.P. No.700 of 2020, by obtaining relevant proof. (b) Upon such verification, discrepancies were noticed in the age particulars furnished by the petitioners, inasmuch as lesser ages were mentioned in W.P. No.700 of 2020 when compared to the ages reflected in W.P. No.97 of 1988. Based on the age particulars mentioned in W.P. No.97 of 1988, it is contended that the petitioners have already crossed the age of superannuation. However, in view of the absence of specific Government orders for implementing the directions of this Court in respect of W.P. No.700 of 2020 and in compliance with the instructions of the Engineer-in-Chief (Administration), respondent No.3 issued proceedings dated 01.02.2024 cancelling the earlier orders granting daily wage employment to the petitioners until further orders from the Government. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.4 issued the impugned proceedings dated 01.02.2024 directing that no daily wage work be offered to the petitioners. (c) Learned Government Pleader reiterates that the Government Memo dated 08.11.2021 and the endorsement dated 09.11.2021 exclusively pertain to the petitioners in W.P. No.46982 of 2018 and not to the petitioners in W.P. No.700 of 2020, and therefore the contention of the petitioners that the Government had granted permission for implementation of the orders in their favour is incorrect. In view of the absence of specific Government instructions and the discrepancies noticed in the age particulars, it is contended that the impugned proceedings do not suffer from any illegality. Hence, learned Government Pleader prays that the Writ Petition be dismissed. 8. This Court had taken note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Hence, learned Government Pleader prays that the Writ Petition be dismissed. 8. This Court had taken note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 9. A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioners earlier filed W.P. No.700 of 2020 before this Court, and this Court, vide order dated 09.01.2020, following the order in W.P. No.46982 of 2018 dated 02.08.2019, set aside the rejection proceedings dated 23.05.2018 and directed respondent No.2 to consider the recommendations made by respondent No.3 on 24.03.2018 and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued Memo dated 20.10.2023 requesting respondent No.4 herein to offer work to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions. After fulfilment of these conditions, the respondents offered work to the petitioners and they subsequently joined duty. Consequently, respondent No.4 issued proceedings dated 22.12.2023, wherein at paragraph No.6 it is mentioned as follows: “6. Physical fitness certificate and age proof certificate (in case of illiterate) may be obtained by the Civil Surgeons from the Government Hospitals and satisfy himself before offering work about fitness and age.” 10. From the above, it is clear that the respondents were required to ensure that the petitioners possessed the requisite physical fitness and age proof before offering work. In compliance with the said direction, necessary verification is to be conducted by the Civil Surgeons of the Government Hospitals to satisfy themselves regarding the fitness and age of the petitioners prior to the commencement of work. Only after fulfilment of these conditions, the respondents were justified in offering work to the petitioners. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the petitioners were provided work without instructions from the Government and without proper verification cannot be countenanced. Furthermore, the respondents have failed to explain what action was taken against the officials who are involved in verification formalities. 11. A perusal of the Memo dated 20.10.2023 issued by respondent No.3 discloses reference to the Government Memo dated 27.01.2005 issued by the Irrigation and CAD Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, with reference to the Supreme Court’s directions in W.P. No.793 of 1987, W.P. No.97 of 1988, and batch of similarly placed workers. 11. A perusal of the Memo dated 20.10.2023 issued by respondent No.3 discloses reference to the Government Memo dated 27.01.2005 issued by the Irrigation and CAD Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, with reference to the Supreme Court’s directions in W.P. No.793 of 1987, W.P. No.97 of 1988, and batch of similarly placed workers. The petitioners herein, being parties to W.P. No.97 of 1988, are therefore clearly covered by the said Government Memo, which lays down the policy for providing preferential daily wage employment to NMR/Daily Wage workers pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. At this stage, it would be apposite to extract the relevant portion of the Government Memo dated 27.01.2005, which reads as under: “Consequent to the Orders of Supreme Court in W.P. No.793/87 etc., CMP No.27808/87 in W.P. No.2954 to 3016/85 and W.P. No.97/88 and batch filed by several workers praying to take them back into service, Government, after careful examination of the matter, hereby issues the following instructions in the cases of providing employment to N.M.Rs/Daily Wage Labourers who are petitioners in aforesaid Writ Petitions. INSTRUCTIONS 1. Whenever daily wage workers are required for excavation of canals in various projects like Srisailam Left Bank Canal, Tungabhadra Project High Level Canal, Telugu Ganga Project, the writ petitioners in above cases shall be provided daily wage work on preferential basis, provided that these persons were working previously, and are willing to go to the places where employment can be provided and are willing to do manual work that can be provided; …” From the above, it is clear that the petitioners, who filed W.P. No.97 of 1988, are specifically covered by the said Government Memo. The Memo also refers to the order dated 01.12.1994 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, acknowledging the petitioners’ entitlement to preferential daily wage employment as NMR/Daily Wage workers. The instructions laid down in the G.O. make it clear that petitioners are eligible for work subject to prior employment and willingness, with no requirement of producing any genuineness certificate or imposing age restrictions. 13. It is to be noted that the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents is silent with regard to the petitioners’ contentions. Therefore, it must be construed that W.P. No.97 of 1988 filed by the petitioners was indeed referred to in the Government Memo dated 27.01.2005. 13. It is to be noted that the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents is silent with regard to the petitioners’ contentions. Therefore, it must be construed that W.P. No.97 of 1988 filed by the petitioners was indeed referred to in the Government Memo dated 27.01.2005. The respondents cannot now contend that the Government has not granted permission for implementation. If the respondents had any doubt regarding the age of the petitioners as per Condition No.6 of the proceedings dated 22.12.2023, they ought to have referred the petitioners’ cases to the Civil Surgeon for verification. However, this Court is of the opinion that after verifying the physical fitness and age of the petitioners, the respondents themselves admittedly provided work to the petitioners. Consequently, the contentions raised by the respondents cannot be countenanced. 14. Further, a perusal of the additional material papers filed by the petitioners along with their reply affidavit, wherein they have produced their record sheets, study certificates and conduct certificates. On perusal of the same, it is evident that the date of birth of petitioner No.1 is mentioned as 14.10.1966, as reflected in the Study and Conduct Certificate and record sheet issued by Vignan High School, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District; the date of birth of petitioner No.2 is mentioned as 24.12.1969 as reflected in the Study and Conduct Certificate and record sheet issued by the Government School at Miryalaguda; and the date of birth of petitioner No.3 is mentioned as 01.01.1968 as reflected in the Study and Conduct Certificate and record sheet issued by the concerned Government School at Miryalaguda. The said documents are maintained during the relevant period, issued by competent school authorities and duly authenticated. No material has been placed on record by the respondents to discredit the genuineness of these documents. Therefore, the contention of the respondents regarding alleged discrepancies in the age particulars of the petitioners cannot be countenanced. Further, the respondents cannot rely solely on the age particulars mentioned in W.P. No.97 of 1988 filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, through statements in their counter-affidavit. 15. Moreover, the impugned proceedings dated 01.02.2024 were issued without any prior notice to the petitioners and without affording them an opportunity of hearing, solely on the ground that the respondents had implemented the orders of this Court in W.P. No.700 of 2020 without prior permission of the Government and proper verification. 16. 15. Moreover, the impugned proceedings dated 01.02.2024 were issued without any prior notice to the petitioners and without affording them an opportunity of hearing, solely on the ground that the respondents had implemented the orders of this Court in W.P. No.700 of 2020 without prior permission of the Government and proper verification. 16. Here, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others , 1978 (1) SCC 405 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that a case cannot be improved by filing any affidavit. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is extracted hereunder: “… … The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. … …” 17. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioners, having earlier filed W.P. No.97 of 1988 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and being specifically covered under the Government Memo dated 27.01.2005, are clearly entitled to preferential daily wage employment as NMR/Daily Wage workers. The impugned proceedings dated 01.02.2024 cancelling the earlier orders granting work to the petitioners, are not sustainable under law. The respondents’ contentions regarding the alleged discrepancies in age particulars are untenable, particularly in view of the school records, study certificates and conduct certificates produced by the petitioners, which remain unrebutted. Further, the impugned proceedings were issued without affording the petitioners any opportunity of hearing and without following the procedure mandated by the Government Memo and earlier orders of this Court, thereby rendering the same as illegal and unsustainable and the impugned proceedings dated 01.02.2024 issued by respondent No.4 are liable to be set aside. 18. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned Memo No.Estt/SE/IC/KDD/AB/E3/WP No.700/43E dated 01-02-2024 and the respondents are directed to provide work to the petitioners on daily wage basis as NMR workers under the control of respondent No.5, subject to availability of work. 19. 18. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned Memo No.Estt/SE/IC/KDD/AB/E3/WP No.700/43E dated 01-02-2024 and the respondents are directed to provide work to the petitioners on daily wage basis as NMR workers under the control of respondent No.5, subject to availability of work. 19. In view of the above, the Contempt Case No.943 of 2024 stands closed, as the petitioners’ entitlement and the interim relief granted by this Court have been fully justified by setting aside the impugned proceedings. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.