Disposed

Anantha Sivasankara Reddy v. the Ap Spdcl

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Dec 2025WP/34751/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, outsourced Shift Operators, sought directions to pay differential wages after their pay was reduced. The respondents' standing counsel undertook to decide on the representations. The court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to examine the representations and departmental reports and pass orders within six weeks.

What the court decided

AI extract

Anantha Sivasankara Reddy Vs the Ap Spdcl — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

APHC010625552025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3460]

¶5

FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 34751/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

Anantha Sivasankara Reddy and Others

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

The Ap Spdcl and Others

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶16

1.PEETA RAMAN

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶19

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶23

W.P.No.34751 of 2025

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondents in not paying the differential salary from 17.08.2019 to 30.11.2020 and from 01.12.2020 to 13.08.2023 in spite of the representations as illegal and arbitrary.

¶26

The petitioners were appointed on 17.08.2019 as Shift Operators on an outsourcing basis at the 33/11 kV Chandana Sub Section. It is stated that initially the Petitioners were paid wages/salaries at the rate of Rs.20,598/- and subsequently, the wages were revised to Rs.15,000, and thereafter representations were given by the Petitioners in that regard. Though the Petitioners submitted representations with regard to payment of the differential pay to the petitioners, no action was taken thereon. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

¶27

Sri K. Venkata Ramana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents, submits that an appropriate decision will be taken on the representations of the petitioners and the departmental reports regarding the differential salaries as claimed by the Petitioner.

¶28

¶29

4. Heard the respective counsel.

¶30

In the light of the submissions made, the present Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶31

i) The Respondents are directed to examine the representations of the Petitioners and departmental reports regarding the differential salaries/wages being paid to the Petitioners and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶32

ii) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶34

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶35

Date: 12.12.2025 eha

¶36

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶38

WRIT PETITION No. 34751/2025

¶39

Dt. 12.12.2025

¶40

eha

Anantha Sivasankara Reddy v. the Ap Spdcl

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Anantha Sivasankara Reddy v. the Ap Spdcl

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D v Ratnam Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Saleem Basha Vs The State of A.P.

Kvln Prasad Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

B H Chirabjeevi Raju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Salapaka Venkatesh Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

B Jagadeesh Vs the State of Ap