Disposed¶51

D Sujhansi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Feb 2026WP/12268/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; W.P. No. 12268 of 2023; Justice D. Ramesh; MPHA (F) on contract basis; age of superannuation 62 years; G.O.Ms.No.15 Finance Department dated 31-1-2022; retirement order Rc.No.SPL/PHC, ATL/2020 dated 11-1-2023 by 6th respondent Medical Officer, PHC Attaluru; violation of interim order dated 09.05.2023; relief on 31.5.2023 and reinstatement in May 2025; salary for period of interim order; W.A.No.381 of 2020 and batch para 44; writ petition disposed of; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider and release the petitioner's salary from the date of the interim order (09.05.2023) till the date of her retirement (May 2025), to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; writ petition disposed of with no costs. ¶51

D Sujhansi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' action in issuing the impugned retirement order dated 11-1-2023 without extending the age of superannuation up to 62 years to the petitioner (MPHA (F) on contract basis), by not extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance Department dated 31-1-2022, is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and without jurisdiction. +1 more

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Taking the observations of the Division Bench in paragraph no.44 of W.A.No.381 of 2020 and batch (that an employee directed to be continued in service by interim orders but retired in violation thereof must be paid salary and emoluments for that period), the respondents are directed to consider and release the salary of the petitioner from the date of the interim order till the date of her retirement, completing the exercise within three months from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contract MPHA (F) retired by order dated 11-1-2023 (Rc.No.SPL/PHC, ATL/2020) without extension of superannuation age to 62 years under G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance Department dated 31-1-2022 — interim order dated 09.05.2023 suspended the retirement order and directed the petitioner's continuation in service on contract basis — respondents nonetheless relieved her on 31.5.2023 and reinstated her only shortly before her retirement in May 2025, without releasing salary for the intervening period — relying on the Division Bench observations in W.A.No.381 of 2020 and batch (para 44) that an employee continued in service under interim orders but retired in violation thereof must be paid salary and emoluments for that period — respondents directed to consider and release the petitioner's salary from the date of the interim order till the date of retirement, within three months — writ petition disposed of, no costs.

¶1

¶2

APHC010233142023

¶3

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

¶4

[3208]

¶5

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 12268/2023

¶9

Between:

¶10

D SUJHANSI, W/O PRASADA RAO, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC. MPHA (F) ON CONTRACT BASIS, SUB-CENTRE DIDUGU, MPHCATTALURU, PALNADU DISTRICT

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPL CHIEF SECRETARY, FINANCE(HR.IV-FR AND LR) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, AP, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶16

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, , STATE OF AP, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA.

¶17

THE DISTRICT MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER, PALNADU DISTRICT, AT PALNADU.

¶18

THE MEDICAL OFFICER, MANDAL PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, ATTALURU, PALNADU DISTRICT.

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents herein in issuing the impugned retirement order vide proceeding. Rc.No.SPL/PHC,

¶21

¶22

ATL/2020, dated 11-1-2023 without extending the age of superannuation up to 62 years to the petitioner herein also, by extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance Department dated 31-1-2022 to the petitioner herein also as highly illegal, arbitrary, discrimination, contrary to the law and also without jurisdiction and consequential the Hon'ble court may pleased to declaring that the petitioner herein is entitled to continue in service up to 62 years as MPHA (F) on contract basis by setting aside the impugned order dated 11-1-2023, with all consequential benefits and may pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶24

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 herein to continue the petitioner in service MPHA (F) on contract basis up to the age of 62 years, by suspending the impugned retirement order issued vide proceeding Rc.No.SPL/PHC, ATL/2020, dated 11-1-2023 by the 6th respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶25

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶26

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 vacate the interim directions issued in W.P.No.12268 of 2023, dated 09-05-2023 and to dismiss the Writ Petition and to pass

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶28

1.M R TAGORE

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶30

1.GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶31

2.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶32

The Court made the following:

¶33

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶36

“…. to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in issuing the impugned retirement order vide proceeding Rc.No.SPL/PHC, ATL/2020, dated 11-1-2023 without extending the age of superannuation up to 62 years to the petitioner herein also, by extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance Department dated 31-1-2022 to the petitioner herein also as highly illegal, arbitrary, discrimination, contrary to the law and also without jurisdiction and consequential the Hon'ble court may pleased to declaring that the petitioner herein is entitled to continue in service up to 62 years as MPHA (F) on contract basis by setting aside the impugned order dated 11-1-2023, with all consequential benefits and may pass ….”

¶37

Heard M/s M.R.Tagore, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶38

Considering the submissions on both sides, on 09.5.2023, this

¶39

Court has passed the following interim order.

¶40

“…Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there shall be an interim suspension of the impugned retirement order dated 11.01.2023 issued by the 6^th respondent and the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner in service on contract basis till she attain the age of superannuation of „62‟ years.”

¶41

Despite the above said directions, the respondents have not inclined to continue the petitioner and relieved the petitioner from service on 31.5.2023 and subsequently the respondents have reinstated the petitioner just before her retirement in the month of May,

¶42

¶43

2025 i.e. before retirement up to the date of retirement i.e. up to May 2025 and accordingly she was retired in the year May 2025. But the respondents have not chosen to release the salary for the two years period in view of the above said directions. In the said circumstances, the petitioner was entitled for the salary as per the observations of the Division bench of this Court in W.A.No.381 of 20201 and batch dated 01.4.2021 at paragraph no.44 which reads as follows:

¶44

“Before parting with the records, we would like to dwell upon another aspect, which cannot be brushed aside. Despite the interim orders passed by this Court allowing the petitioners to continue in service, in gross violation of such interim orders, they have been retired during the subsistence of the interim orders. The action of the University is condemnable and such action is antithesis to rule of law. The appellants have taken law into their own hands and such action is not expected, least of all from an academic institution. This Court cannot remain a mute spectator to such flagrant violation of orders of the Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioners were directed to be continued in service by the interim orders, we direct the appellants to pay salary and emoluments to the writ petitioners from the date when such pay and emoluments were stopped till the date of this judgment within a period of two months from today.”

¶45

The contention of the petitioner is that in identical circumstances,

¶46

the Division Bench of this Court has allowed the salaries to be paid to the petitioner in view of the interim orders granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶47

Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that immediately after the interim orders, the respondents have filed their counter and vacate stay petition as the

¶48

¶49

petitioner is a contract employee and she is not entitled for the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022 and in fact the contract employees continuation is concerned, the Division Bench has already dismissed the Writ Petitions. Hence the petitioner is also not entitled to continue.

¶50

Considering the above said submissions and on perusal of the orders of this court and also the interim orders, the facts remains that this Court has considered and passed the interim orders on 09.5.2023 and subsequently the respondents have also reinstated the petitioner just before the date of retirement i.e. in the month of May, 2025. In the said circumstances by taking the observations made by the Division Bench in paragraph no.44 in Writ Appeal no.381 of 2020 and batch, the respondents are directed to consider and release the salary of the petitioner from the date of interim order till the date of retirement. The exercise shall be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶51