Dismissed¶38

B Jagadeesh v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Dec 2025WP/10533/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.No.10533 of 2024 (AP High Court, Amaravati; order dated 17.12.2025): retirement at 60 sustained for unregularised NMR-cum-Technical Work Inspector; claim to continue till 62 under A.P. Public Employment (Regularization of Age of Superannuation) Act 1984 rejected; no parity with regular Government employees absent regularization; G.O.Ms.212/22.04.1994 regularization plea contradicted by counter affidavit; G.O.Rt.No.1225/22.08.2009 minimum time scale without regularization rights; Articles 226 and 14; interim application under Section 151 CPC; Panchayat Raj Department (Nellore/Tirupathi); petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None - the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood dismissed as a sequel. ¶38

B Jagadeesh Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

APHC010210362024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3460]

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 10533/2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

B JAGADEESH, S/O KONAYYA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC TECHNICAL WORK INSPECTOR, PRI SUBDIVISION, GUDURU R/O KOTA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, PANCHYAT RAJ CIRCLE, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, GUDUR, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

¶19

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 topleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings Rc.No.EC2/Retirement Notification /2013 dated 12-4-2024 issued by the 3rd respondent directing the petitioner to retire from service at the age of 60 years on 304-2024 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of A.P Public Employment ( Regularization of Age of Superannuation) Act 1984, discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India and Consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 to continue the petitioner till he attains the of 62 years, and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶21

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 pleased to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to continue the petitioner as Technical Work Inspector till he completes the age of 62 years by suspending the proceedings Rc.No.EC2/Retirement Notification /2013 dated 124-2024 issued by the 3rd respondent , pending disposal of the above Writ petition, and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.P GANGA RAMI REDDY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

¶28

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶29

W.P.No.10533 of 2024

¶30

O R DE R:

¶31

The Present writ petition is filed declaring the proceedings Rc.No.EC2/Recruitment Notification/2013 dated 12.04.2024 issued by Respondent No.3 directing the Petitioner to retire from service at the age of 60 years i.e. on 30.06.2024 as illegal, arbitrary.

¶32

The Petitioner was initially appointed as NMR on 01.10.1985 in Panchayat Raj Department and subsequently his services were regularized as per G.O.Ms.212, Finance & Planning (P.C.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994 and as Respondent Nos.3 and 4 allowed the Petitioner to work as Techinical Work Inspector as he is possessing the qualification of ITI, he is working as such. The pay of the Petitioner was fixed as per the revised pay scales.

¶33

While so, Respondent No.4 issued letter vide R.C.No.B2/work charged/2021 dated 27.03.2024 to the 3rd Respondent stating that Petitioner is attaining the age of 60 years by 30.06.2024 and requested to issue notice to the Petitioner retiring him from service on 30.06.2024. Pursuant to the said letter, 3rd Respondent issued proceedings

¶34

¶35

Rc.No.EC2/Retirement Notification/2013 dated 12.04.2024, informing to the Petitioner regarding the same.

¶36

In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.4, it is stated that Petitioner did not join in the regularised post of Attender and is continuing in service as NMR and claiming salary under the Head of NMR only. As per G.O.Rt.No.1225, P.R. & R.D.(ESTT-IIA) Department, dated 22.08.2009, Government has accorded sanction for payment of minimum time scale of pay without HRA and other allowances stating that granting of minimum time scale of pay to the NMRs shall not confer any right for regularization.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

¶38

As the Petitioner is not regularised, he cannot claim parity with persons in regular Government employment. Therefore, no case is made out for the Petitioner and accordingly writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶39

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand

¶40

dismissed.

¶41

___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶42

Date: 17.12.2025 KLP

B Jagadeesh v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Jagadeesh v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B H Chirabjeevi Raju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Salapaka Venkatesh Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Anantha Sivasankara Reddy Vs the Ap Spdcl

Vedula Srinivasu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

N.Nagini, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Siddhabatthula Vara Prasad Rao Vs the State of Ap