Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Zilla Grandhalaya Samstha Employee'S ... vs Secretary, Education Dept., Govt. Of ... on 1 April, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(3)ALD497, 1998(3)ALT692
ORDER
1. The petitioner, Zilla Grandhayala Samastha Employees' Association, Chittoor District represented by its President K.J. Madhavudu, filed this writ petition questioning the validity of Memo No.15/Lib.2/95, dated 3-6-1995 and Memo No.909/Lib.2/95, dated 22-34996 issued by the 1st respondent-Government.
2. The sum and substance of the impugned Memos is that the proposal sent by the Director of Public Libraries (hereinafter referred to as 'the Director') for absorption of the attenders working in the libraries functioning at Mandal Head Quarters in Chittoor District in the last grade service was negatived by the Government in its first Memo dated 3-6-1995 by stating that the A.P. (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act 2 of 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 2 of 1994) and the orders issued in G.O. Ms. No.212 Finance and Planning Department dated 22-4-1994 for regularisation of Daily Wage /NMR/ Consolidated pay employees who have put in five years of minimum service on the cut off date of 25-11-1993 are not applicable to part-time employees. After receipt of this Memo dated 3-6-1995, the proposal sent by the Director for extending the benefit under G.O. Ms. No.212 to these employees, if necessary by relaxing the conditions, was rejected in the second Memo dated 23-3-1996 as the same is not feasible and as the regularisation of services have to be considered against clear vacancies. The petitioner-Association sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the two Memos and sought a consequential relief for regularisation of the services of the attenders working in the libraries at Mandal Head Quarters and also to pay the salaries in the time scale of pay applicable to Class IV employees with attendant benefits.
3. The undisputed facts of this case are that the Government, on a proposal sent by the Director pursuant to the meeting held on 22-3-1996 in the Chambers of the Hon'ble Chief Minister where a decision was taken among other things to establish 566 branch libraries at Mandal Head Quarters which are not provided with library services, the Government issued orders in G.O. Ms. No.269 Education (Lib.1) Department, dated 20-6-1986 for opening 566 libraries at the Mandal Head Quarters which are not provided with library services and permitted the Director to sanction the necessary supporting staff i.e., one librarian Grade-111 in the time scale of pay of Rs.450-700 with usual allowances and one part-time worker with monthly remuneration of Rs.150/- for each of these libraries to man the libraries. In other words the Government wants to pay one rupee (Rs. 1/-) per hour of their work. Pursuant to the said orders, the Director in his proceedings Rc No.121/B2/86, dated 5-9-1986 gave certain clarifications with regard to the payment of wages to part-time workers, in the branch libraries. As per the proceeding dated 5-9-1986 no educational qualifications are prescribed for appointment to the post ofpart-time worker. But at the same time he must be a major i.e., above the age of eighteen (18) years. The most important clarification in the said proceeding is extracted hereunder:
"Regarding working hours the appointees shall be clearly informed in their appointment order that they will have to work for six hours daily, since the Branch Libraries work for six hours a day.'' After receipt of the above clarification, the Chairman, Zilla Grandhalaya Samstha, Chittoor, made appointments to the posts of part-time workers from the candidates sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, Chittoor, in his proceedings dated 19-11-1986. In the said order it is again made clear that the appointee has to work for six hours daily since the branch library works for six hours a day. It is interesting to note that the last words of the appointment order - 'the remuneration fixed for the post will be paid only on release of grant'. Subsequently, the remuneration seemed to have been increased from Rs.150/- to Rs.350/- i.e. two rupees (Rs.2/-) per hour. The wages that are being offered by the State which claims to be a Welfare State are nowhere nearer to the wages fixed by it for an unskilled worker under Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Act XI of 1948).
4. The members of the petitioner-Association were working as part-time workers in forty two libraries established at Mandal Head Quarters and since the date of their appointment they are continuously working in that capacity uninterruptedly. Having failed to get their services regularised and to receive time scale of pay, some of the part-time workers seemed to have filed OA Nos.2257 to 2284 of 1990 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal. During the pendency of the above OAs., Act 2 of 1994 came into force on 15-1-1994. Under this Act, a temporary employee working on daily wage basis or temporary basis has no right to claim for regularisation of services on any ground whatsoever. Perhaps this Act is intended to nullify the effect of catena of judgments rendered by the Apex Court as well as this Court with regard to regularisation of services of the temporary employees. The virus of the Act was questioned by some of the affected employees in the Supreme Court by filing a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. At the verge of striking down the enactment, the Government assured that a Scheme will be formulated to absorb the services of the employees that are working regularly, under whatever nomenclature they might have been appointed. Accordingly, G.O. Ms. No.212 Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22-4-1994 was issued whereunder the Government came forward to regularise the services of all the temporary employees appointed on daily wage/NMR or on consolidated pay who has put in minimum five years of service and are continuing as on 25-11-1993. The OAs filed by the individual employees were disposed of by a common order by the Tribunal dated 3-2-1995, whereunder a direction was given to the Government to consider the cases of those applicants for regularisation under G.O. Ms. No.212 and other G.Os. issued by the Government from time to time, The Tribunal further held that till such time orders are passed under G.O. Ms. No.212, the applicants be continued to receive remuneration on the same terms and conditions on which they are presently continuing. On the basis of the above order, when the Director moved the proposals for regularisation of the part-time workers appointed in the libraries functioning at Mandal Head Quarters, the Government turned down his request in the above impugned Mcmos. In those circumstances, the applicants in the above OAs seemed to have filed CA No.569 of 1995. But the learned Member dismissed the same by accepting the plea of the Government, even without looking into the provisions of the Act, that the petitioners are working as part-time employees and as such G.O. Ms. No.212 cannot be applied.
5. Having left with no other alternative, the part-time workers working in the libraries functioning at Mandal Head Quarters formed into an Association and filed the present writ petition questioning the validity of these two Memos. This Court while admitting the writ petition directed the respondents to pay the time scale of pay attached to the post in which the petitioners are working with effect from 1-9-1996 pending further orders in the writ petition, inWP MP No.24471 of 1996, dated 20-9-1996. After receipt of the order, the respondents filed WV MP No.961 of 1997 to vacate the interim order granted by this Court. The main objection taken by the Government was about the maintainability of the writ petition by an unregistered Association. The other grounds are in consonance with the reasons given in the impugned order. In the counter-affidavit they stated that 565 workers are working in the State and it is not feasible to regularise their services, as they are working only for a limited period of four hours a day. Having rejected the contention of the Government Pleader about the maintainability of the writ petition keeping the fact that a large chunk of employees are working as part-time workers on starvation wages and it is difficult for all of them to approach this Court seeking redressal of their grievance, I directed the respondents to frame a Scheme to absorb all the petitioners in the regular posts and also to fit in them in the time scale of pay that are prescribed by the Grandhalaya Samstha and produce the Scheme before the Court on 9-6-1997, the day on which the Court will re-open after summer vacation. Ultimately, when the matter came up for hearing, the Government Pleader produced GO (P) No. 112 Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 23-7-1997. In para No.5 of the said GO the order given by me on 25-4-1997 was referred and in para No.6 it is stated that the part-time workers who have put in a minimum period often years service and continuing as on 25-11-1993, the date on which Act 2 of 1994 came into force are only eligible to get their services regularised subject to the fulfilment of the conditions mentioned therein. At the verge of striking down the G.O., as it is nothing but an arbitrary exercise of power by the State, the Government Pleader literally begged the Court not to strike down the G.O., as such an action may land the Government in financial troubles because of the precarious financial conditions, and requested me to give him some time to see that he will prevail over his clients to relax the period of ten years at least in case of petitioners and see that their services arc regularised. I acceded to the request and adjourned the matter till the end of Pongal Vacation, 1998. Though the matter underwent two adjournments after Pongal Vacation, nothing could be heard from the Government side except stating that the file is with the Finance Secretary. In those circumstances, by an order dated 12-2-1998 I directed the petitioners to implead the Finance Secretary as one of the respondents to this writ petition and adjourned the matter to 16-2-1998. On 17-2-1998, me Government Pleader for Finance appeared before this Court and a direction was given to him to produce the entire filed relating to the fixation of time scale of pay to the petitioners. On 6-3-1998 when the matter came up for hearing again, the Government Pleader for Finance alongwith the counter filed by one K. Satyanarayana, Assistant Secretary to Govemment Finance and Planning, also filed Act 3 of 1998 presented to the Legislative Assembly on 27-11-1997 passed on the same date, which came into force on 3-1-199.8 whereunder the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 were amended. A look at the, amendment gives an impression that Act 2 of 1994 was amended to confer statutory protection to G.O. (P) No.112 and to give immunity from the attack that it is a mala fide exercise of power. Under Section 3 of the Amendment Act, Section 7 of the Principal Act is sought to be amended by introducing two more provisos in the section after the first proviso. These provisos are intended to confer statutory recognition to G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22-4-1994 and G.O. (P) No.112, dated 23-7-1997, the G.Os. under attack in this writ petition respectively, and both the provisos are extracted hereunder:
"3. In Section 7 of the Principal Act:
(a) ....... ....... ....... ....... (b) ....... ....... ....... .......
(c) after the opening paragraph and before the first proviso so amended, the following provisions shall be inserted, namely:
"Provided that the services of a person, who worked on daily wage/NMR/ Consolidated pay/Contingent worker on full time basis continuously for a minimum period of five years and is continuing as such on the date of the commencement of the Act shall be regularised in accordance with the Scheme formulated in G.O. Ms. No.212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated the 22nd April, 1994;
Provided further that the services of a person who worked on part-time basis continuously for a minimum period often years and is continuing as such on the date of the commencement of this Act shall be regularised in accordance with the Scheme formulated in G.O. (P) No.112 Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 23rd July, 1997."
As far as the Government Pleader for School Education is concerned, he pleaded that neither himself nor the Department is aware,, of the amendment Act and he simply pleaded ignorance of the amendment This Court, is of the view that Act 2 of 1994 lost its utility after issuance of G.O. Ms. No.212, relating to the regularisation of services of temporary employees, and to that extent the Act has become redundant. My view is supported by the statements of the officials themselves. Under Section 11 of the Act within a period of one month from the date of commencement of Act 2 of 1994 the Government has to constitute Review Committees to review the existing staff pattern keeping in view the work load of such office or establishment, the pay scales, allowances etc. the job requirements for each post and submit its report with its recommendations and the Government is expected to take action on those recommendations. The officers who appeared in the Court on 18-3-1998 pursuant to my order dated 6-3-1998 stated that Review Committees constituted for four or five Departments submitted their reports but the Government has not taken any action on the reports. Act 2 of 1994 came into force on 15-1-1994 i.e. about four years back. While the Review Committees constituted for majority of the Departments did not submit their reports, even in case where the reports were received the Government failed to take any action. To my mind this Act is intended not only to curb the evil practice of making irregular appointments, without going into the attendant circumstances that lead to these irregular appointments like imposing ban on regular appointments under the guise of austerity for over three decades, but also intended to review the existing staff pattern and provide the necessary required staff to meet the increased work load, the stress and strain to which the staff of each office are subjected to cope up with the work. From the inaction on the part of the Government, the sanctity given by the Executive to the Act can be inferred.
6. When the officers themselves have forgotten the duty cast under the Act, I wanted to know how suddenly it struck to the Executive to get an amendment to Act 2 of 1994 defeating the legitimate expectations of the employees, who are working for decades on starving wages and whether their actions can be justified in the light of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, whether these officers are aware of the exposition given by the Supreme Court to Article 21 of the Constitution of India in Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746, wherein their Lordships have held, 'the right to life enshrined in Article 21 cannot be restricted to mere animal existence. It means something much more than just physical survival. The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes alone with it namely, the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings', and also in other decisions. The officer appeared in the Court categorically admitted that the amendment was moved by the Finance Department itself on its own and he tried to justify his action that even before this Court passed the order, the Bill was introduced in the Assembly. According to him, the Bill was introduced in the Assembly on 27-11-1997 and the same was passed on 27-11-1997 and on receiving the assent of the Governor on 1-1-1998, it came into force as Act 3 of 1998, whereas this Court held that prescription often years service to consider the cases of these employees for regularisation resulting in hostile discrimination is only on 21-11-1997. Here, it is interesting to note that in a writ petition filed by Masalchies working in Subordinate Courts for more than five years seeking regularisation of their services under G.O. Ms. No.212, the Government contested their claim by saying that they are only part-time employees and as such their cases cannot fall under GO. Ms. No.212 for regularisation of their services. A Division Bench of this Court in G. Gaddemma and others v. Government of A.P., 1997 (4) ALD 214 rejected the contention of the Government, and relying on Section 2(ii) of Act2 of 1994 held that even part-time employees are governed by G.O, Ms. No.212 and their services have to be regularised as per the terms and conditions of the said G.O. Aggrieved by the said order, the Government seemed to have filed an S.L.P., and a letter dated 3-2-1998 written by K. Ramkumar, advocate for the State of A.P., in Supreme Court, was filed before this Court. As per the contents of the letter the Special Leave Petition came up for hearing before their Lordships G.N. Ray and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ., on 3-2-1998 and the Court while issuing notice, directed maintenance of stains quo as on that date. From this, it is evident that a Court of competent jurisdiction categorically held that G.O. Ms. No.212 is applicable to the part-time employees also, and the Government carried the matter in appeal to the Apex Court and a decision on this aspect is awaited. Likewise in G.O. (P) No. 112, the Government categorically referred to the order passed by rue on 25-4-1997 and the Scheme framed by the Government is under scrutiny by this Court. Had the intention of the officer concerned is a how fide one, he would have waited till the disposal of the S.L.P., filed in the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court, or at least he would have waited till the disposal of the writ petition. Having slept over the matter for more than four years in giving statutory recognition to G.O. Ms. No.212 had he waited for a little more time no prejudice would have been caused to the Government.
7. This Court time and again pointed out the arbitrary actions of the officials of the Government and gross injustice and mental agony, to which the litigant public are subjected to. But the same advise given by this Court is not reaching the ears of the bureaucracy. This is because there is no accountability on the part of the bureaucracy for their actions and they are enjoying immunity for their actions whether they are legal, illegal, taken in good faith or in bad faith. If democracy has to survive in this country, I think time is running out and unless some legislation is brought in, making the erring officials responsible for the evil consequences to which the litigant public are subjected and to save them from the untold miseries to which they are subjected there is no salvation for the problems faced by the teeming millions of this country for no fault of them.
8. Now, coming to the merits of the case the following issues arise for consideration of this Court.
(i) Whether the attenders working in the libraries functioning at the Mandal Head Quarters can be treated as part-time employees ?
(ii) Even assuming without admitting that they are considered to be part-time employees, can the G.O. (P) No.112 to which a statutory recognition was conferred under Act 3 of 1998, by amending Act 2 of 1994, be sustained in law on the touch stone of Article 14 under which any arbitrary action is per se violative of the said Article ?
Point No. (i):
9. Admittedly, the Government with a view to inculcate the reading habit among the people decided to open the libraries where there are no libraries at Mandal level all over the State in G.O.Ms.No.269 dated 20-6-1986. A look at the G.O. gives me an impression that the Government has undertaken this task in a phased manner and by the time of this G.O., libraries have been opened in more than half of the Mandals, and a ban seemed to have been imposed due to financial constraints. In those circumstances, in the meeting held in the Chambers of the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 22-3-1996 a decision was taken to complete the programme of establishing at least one library for each mandal in relaxation of the ban. Pursuant to the above decision, the Director moved the proposals for establishment of 565 libraries in the left out Mandals till then, and the Government accorded sanction in G.O. Ms. No.269 dated 20-6-1989. While according sanction, the Government also approved for creation of supporting staff to man these libraries. While a librarian of Grade-in is appointed in the time-scale of pay of Rs.450-700 with usual allowances, the attender to assist him from the time of opening keys of the library till the locking of the library is termed as part-time employee and an inhuman pay of Rs.150/- was suggested to these employees. Subsequently, this pay seemed to have been enhanced to Rs.350/-. Under G.O. Ms. No.269 the Government created two categories of posts one in regular time scale of pay and another on payment of a paltry sum of Rs.150/- per month. Though both of them are discharging the duties attached to their posts respectively for six hours a day, treating two categories of employees created under the same order differently itself is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
10. In the light of the judgment in Francis Coralie's case (supra) no prudent person can say that the employees in the lower rung are being paid adequately to meet both the ends of life leave apart getting his children educated or commensurate with the work turned out by them. Under Article 42 of the Directive Principles of the State Policy, the State is bound to create just and humane conditions of work to all the employees. While private employer is bound to pay the minimum wages for various categories of skilled and unskilled workers working in various walks of life, the Executive thinks that the provisions of Minimum Wages Act are not applicable to the Government servants.
11. Be that as it may. Unlike other tempoiary appointments made by the officials of the Government without reference to the Rules governing recruitment, in this case the posts were created by the Government and they were filled up by following the procedure known to law, i.e. by drawing the candidates from the Employment Exchange and appointing the selected candidates to the posts.
Except the word used 'part-time' in the appointment order, the proceeding of the Director dated 5-9-1986 is very clear that the library works for six hours a day and as long as the library functions, this attender has to be in the library. Having accepted this appointment he cannot even think of any other appointment, as substantial portion of the day he has to spend in the library. Secondly, the librarians appointed in these libraries are treated as regular employees and they are also expected to work for six hours along with the part-time workers. But they arc treated as regular employees and are being paid the time-scales of pay attached to the post. Further the G.O., deals with only 565 employees functioning at the Mandal Head Quarters. It is not the case of the respondents that libraries functioning elsewhere in the State are working for more than six hours and those attenders are working beyond six hours or they are being paid on par with the petitioners.
12. Nextly, a look at G.O. Ms. No.269 suggests that apart from these 565 mandals for which administrative sanction was given by the Government, in other Mandals also libraries are functioning. But, the respondents did not try to justify their action on the ground that the employees working there, are also treated as part-time employees. Hence, it is preposterous to treat the attenders appointed under this G.O., are part-time workers. Except the nomenclature 'part-time' used in the appointment order, for all other purposes they are working on regular basis and they should be treated as regular employees. Time and again this Court and the Supreme Court repeatedly held that the language used in the appointment order is not conclusive to determine whether the appointment is temporary, ad hoc or regular, but the attendant circumstances have to be taken into consideration. Viewed from any angle, these persons were appointed in the posts created by the Government on regular basis and following the procedure for recruitment. Hence, the State cannot escape its obligation to pay living wages on par with persons similarly placed to these employees by taking shelter under the word 'part-time' in their appointment order. Such an action is not only violative of the principle of equal pay for equal work enshrined in Article 39(d) but also the equal protection of laws clause guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
13. The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan, held that public employment is a national wealth.
14. The Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, also the Supreme Court held, "that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It requires that State action must not be arbitrary but must be based on some rational and relevant principle which is non-discriminatory : it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant consideration, because that would be denial of equality. The principle of reasonableness and rationality which is legally as well as philosophically an essential element of equality or nonarbitrariness is projected by Article 14 and it must characterise every State action, whether it be under authority of law or in exercise of executive power without making of law. The State cannot, therefore, act arbitrarily in entering into relationship, contractual or otherwise with a third party, but its action must conform to some standard or norm which is rational and non-discriminatory."
In the light of the above observation, the fixation of a paltry sum as monthly wage to a low paid worker is neither reasonable nor rational and it is nothing but arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the officials of the Government.
15. For all these reasons, the attenders working in the libraries appointed under G.O. Ms. No.269 should be treated as full time employees, but not as a part-time employees as contended by the State.
Point No.(ii) Even assuming without admitting that these attenders are only part-time employees as contended by the respondents 'daily wage employee' was defined in Section 2(ii) of Act 2 of 1994. It is useful to extract the same.
"(ii) 'Daily wage employee' means any person who is employed in any public service on the basis of payment of daily wages and includes a person employed on the basis of nominal muster roll or consolidated pay either on full-time or part-time or piece rate basis or as a work charged employee and any other similar category of employees by whatever designation called other than those who are selected and appointed in a sanctioned post in accordance with the relevant rules on a regular basis."
A Division Bench of this Court held, that even part-time employees are covered by G.O. Ms. No.212 in G. Gaddemma's case (supra). Till the above decision is reversed, I am bound by the judgment and I am in respectful agreement with the reasoning given by His Lordship S. Parvatha Rao, J., speaking for the Bench in that judgment. While amending Act 2-of 1994, Section 2(ii) and Section 7(i) were kept in tact i.e. no person who is a daily wage employee cannot claim as a matter of right for regularisation of his service.
16. A reading of preamble of G.O. Ms. No.212 makes it clear that the Government has taken a decision to formulate a scheme for regularisation of the services of the persons appointed on Daily Wage/NMR/Consolidated pay who are appointed by the governmental authorities either on daily wage basis or temporary basis without there being a post and without being sponsored by the Employment Exchange etc. and are continuing on the date of commencement of the Act. This G.O. also refers to Daily Wage Employees and part-time employees as defined in Section 2(ii) of Act 2 of 1994. From the definition of Daily Wage Employee as defined in Section 2(ii) of Act 2 of 1994, part-time employee is also included in the definition of daily wage employee. Hence, the Government is estopped from giving another G.O.(P)No.112 under the guise of regularising the services of the part-time employees and fixing the minimum period of ten years of service for regularisation, contrary to the Scheme propounded in G.O. Ms. No.212 which was approved by the Supreme Court and the same is nothing but arbitrary exercise of power. Hence, the same cannot withstand the scrutiny of this Court on the touch stone of equal protection of laws guaranteed under Articles 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the same is liable to be struck down.
17. Viewed from the petitioner's angle it is seen that the Government itself increased upper age limit to thirty two years and thirty seven years under general category and reserved categories respectively as the employment avenues were shut down by the Government under austerity measures for the last three decades due to financial stringency, to enter into Government service keeping in view the large number of youth on the live rolls of Employment Exchanges awaiting employment. At the same time, the retirement age of the employees is fixed at fifty eight years and there is no change in that. In other words, an employee can put up a total service in the Government around twenty five years in the event of securing employment. If a man has to spend ten years without regularisation of his service and if he is forced to work for starvation, he cannot get even full pension after retirement to attend the old age obligations. Hence, he has to naturally look at other means to maintain his family to send the children to the school and also to save monies for future requirements. Further the prime age of an employee is spent without knowing whether his services will be regularised or not. All these factors will lead to uncertainty in the mind of the employee about his existence in the Department and naturally he wilt try to make good out of worst circumstances in which he is placed. In other words, he will resort to unlawful means to make illegal gratification.
18. Viewed from that angle, the action of the Government results in increase in corruption in the Government administration. For alt these reasons, the action of the respondents-Government in prescribing ten years for regularisation of the attenders working in the libraries established at Mandal Head Quarters by stating that they are part-time employees and their cases are not covered by G.O. Ms. No.212 is wholly illegal, unconstitutional and violates Articles 14, 21, 39(d) and 43 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, third proviso to Section 7(i) incorporated in Act 2 of 1994 by amending Act 3 of 1998 is wholly unconstitutional and the same is quashed.
19. Admittedly, these employees were agitating for regularisation of their services even before Act 2 of 1994 came into force. But the officials of the Government denied the benefit under G.O. Ms. No,212 to these employees by giving wrong interpretation to the said G.O. Hence, these employees are entitled to get their services regularised from 25-11-1993 as per terms of G.O. Ms. No.212. Consequently, they are entitled to get the salaries in the time scale of pay attached to the post of attender in Library Department from that date.
20. In the light of the above view taken by me, the writ petition is allowed and a direction is given to the respondents to regularise the services of the attenders working in the libraries established under G.O. Ms. No.269 dated 20-6-1986 with effect from 25-11-1993 in accordance with G.O. Ms. No.212 Finance and Planning Department dated 22-4-1994 with all consequential benefits.
21. The arrears due to the petitioner shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.