Dismissed

Asodi Venkateswara Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Jul 2024WP/11666/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amravati dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-extension of enhanced superannuation age (62 years) to the petitioner. The court held that as the petitioner was appointed on a contract basis for daily wages, the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 does not apply.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was not directed to continue in service; the writ petition was dismissed without costs.

Asodi Venkateswara Reddy, Vs The… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 11666 OF 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Asodi Venkateswara Reddy, S/o. Mara Reddy, Aged 60^{years,Occ:Lighter} Ramakrishnapuram Grama Panchayat, Chirala Mandal, Bapatia^District.

¶7

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal^Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Dept., A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal^Secretary, Finance Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,^{GunturDistrict.}

¶9

The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development^Dept.,PVS Icon, Tadepalli, Guntur District.

¶10

The District Collector, Bapatia, Bapatia District. 5. The District Panchayat Officer, Bapatia, Bapatia District. 6. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Chirala Mandal,^Bapatia District.

¶11

Ramakrishnapuram Grama Panchayat, Rep. by its Panchayat Secretary, Chirala Mandal, Bapatia District

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ or direction more particularly^{awritinthenature} of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents^{innotextendingthe} benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation from^{60yearsto62years}

¶14

9 to the petitioner in terms of G.O. MS.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 issued by the Government as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till attaining the age of superannuation of 62 years on far with similar Government employees in terms of G.O. MS.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 and pay monthly and all attendant benefits. lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till attaining the age of superannuation of 62 years on far with similar Government employees in terms of G.O. MS.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 and pay monthly and all attendant benefits pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G R SUDHAKAR, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED FOR SRI V. VINOD K REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents Nos.1, 3 to 5: ASST. GP FOR SERVICES-III Counsel for the Respondent No.2: ASST. GP FOR SERVICES-I (Counsel for the Respondent No.6 & 7: SMT. B.V. APPARNA LAKSHMI

¶18

(STANDING COUNSEL)

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶21

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.11666 of 2024

¶23

Asodi Venkateswara Reddy, S/o Mara Reddy, Aged 60 years, Occ: Lighter, Ramakrishnapuram Grama Panchayat, Chirala Mandal, Bapatia District. ... Petitioner

¶24

Versus

¶25

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Dept., A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and six others. ... Respondents. Counsel for the petitioner ; Sri V Vinod K. Reddy : GP for Services-I, GP for ServicesCounsel for respondents III and Smt. B.V. Aparna Lakshmi,

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶28

“... to issue any writ or direction more particularly^awrit in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not extending the benefit of enhancement^of age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to^the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022^issued by the Government as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in^servicetill attaining the age of superannuation of 62 years on^farwith similar Government employees in terms of G.O.MS.No.15

¶29

Page 2 of 5 SRSJ WP No.11666 of 2024

¶30

dated 31.01.2022 and pay monthly and all attendant benefits and to pass such other order or orders ...

¶31

Heard Sri G.R. Sudhakar, learned Advocate, representing learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.B. Sri V Vinod K Reddy, Ramesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-lll 3 and 5; Sri S. Raju, learned Assistant for respondent Nos.1 Government Pleader for Services-I, for respondent No.2^andSmt. B V. Apparna Lakshmi, learned standing counsel for^respondents Nos.6 and 7.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.4 by proceedings, dated 30.09.1988, appointed fixed remuneration of Rs.15/the petitioner as NMR Lighter on a per day, and the petitioner was posted at Devengapuri Grama submit that respondent No.4, by Panchayat. He would proceedings in L.P.R. N0.8472/97/PR/A5 dated 18.03.1998, extended the Minimum Time Scale to the petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that subsequently, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.147 dated 30.06.2014, enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years in respect of government employees, and said benefit was extended to the petitioner. Thereafter G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 was issued enhancing the age of superannuation to the government

¶33

Page 3 of 5 SRSJ WP No.11666 of 2024

¶34

¶35

employees from 60 to 62 years. However, said benefit^vyasnot extended to the petitioner.

¶36

Learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Services I and Ill and learned standing counsel, would contend that^theissue involved in this writ petition is covered by the order dated 13.02.2024 passed in W.P.No.2152 of 2024.

¶37

¶38

The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed W.P.No.2152 of 2024 filed by NMR, by placing reliance^onorder, dated 10.01.2024 passed by the learned Division Bench, in W.P.No.21294 of 2023, whereby it was concluded that^Sub Paragraph-1 of Paragraph No.8 of Circular Memo dated 23.09.2022 issued in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022, would be of no use to the contract employees.

¶39

In the case at hand, the petitioner was appointed as^NMR Lighter, on daily wages of Rs.15/- per day, for two^years.A perusal of the proceedings indicates that the petitioner^shallwork only for 89 days and after one one-day gap, again the^petitioner would be reappointed. Thus, the petitioner’s initial^{appointmentis} on a contract basis. In view of the order, dated 10.01.2024 W.P.No.21294 of 2023, the benefit under passed in

¶40

Page 4 of 5

¶41

SRSJ WP No. 11666 of 2024

¶42

G.O.M$.No.15, dated 31.01.2022 cannot be extended to the petitioner.

¶43

Given the above, this writ petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No

¶44

costs.

¶45

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶46

Sd/- V SAVITHRI GOWRI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶47

¶48

To.

¶49

One CC to Sri V. Vinod K Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Services-lll, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 3. Two CCs to GP for Services-I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

¶50

One CC to Smt. B.V. Apparna Lakshmi, Standing Counsel [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:11/07/2024

ORDER

WP.N0.11666 OF 2024

srSf ANoSSSi,
^ A>
I
19 DEC 2029
o
Current aecuon ^J
5!;5^SPATCV'^?<^

¶58

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

Asodi Venkateswara Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asodi Venkateswara Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munaga Srikanth Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Satyanarayana Senapathi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. Cheekatla Venkatrao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S. Pallaki, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Bandaru Prasad Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt Amara Malleswari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh