Disposed¶8

B.v.Gowtham Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Jul 2026WP/18298/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Age of retirement/superannuation 60 versus 62 years; part-time vocational junior lecturer; regularization of long-serving part-time employees; perennial nature of work; part-time nomenclature as camouflage; payment of minimum time scale indicating full-time work; interim suspension of retirement proceedings; reengagement till age 62 pending further orders; G.O.Ms.No.15 Fin. (HR-IV FR & LR) Department dated 31.01.2022; Jaggo v Union of India (2024 SCC Online SC 3826); Dharam Singh v State of UP (2025 Live Law (SC) 818); Shripal v Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad (2025 SCC Online SC 221); related writs W.P. No. 15963 of 2020, W.P. No. 24357 of 2020, W.P. No. 5009 of 2021 and batch (orders dated 18.10.2024), W.P. No. 4975 of 2026 (order dated 23.02.2026); Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; interim order by VN, J dated 08.07.2026; next listing 29.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Interim relief only: impugned retirement Proceedings (RC No.Voc-01/3211914/2026, dated 20.04.2026) suspended; Respondent Authorities directed to reengage the Petitioner and continue him in service till the age of 62 years pending further orders; matter posted to 29.07.2026.

Sl. No.	DATE	ORDER	OFFICE NOTE
1	08.07.2026	VN, J The Writ Petition is filed questioning the Proceedings dated 20.04.2026 in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner to continue him in service till the age of 62 years in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15 Fin. (HR-IV FR & LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022 as illegal and arbitrary. The Petitioner was initially appointed as Part- time Vocational Junior Lecturer in the year 1992 in the Respondent No. 4 College. It is stated that though the nomenclature of the post of the Petitioner is stated to be Part-time, the Petitioner is discharging full-time duties. It is stated that the Petitioner and others filed W.P. No. 15963 of 2020 before this Court seeking regularization of their services considering their long-standing service, and the same was pending. It is stated that similarly situated persons, who were also discharging duties as Part-time Vocational Junior Lecturers, also filed W.P. No. 24357 of 2020 before this Court seeking regularization. This Court, taking note of the similar Orders passed in W.P. No. 5009 of 2021 and batch dated 18.10.2024, allowed the said

Sl.
No.

DATE

ORDER

OFFICE
NOTE

08.07.2026

VN, J
The Writ Petition is filed questioning the
Proceedings dated 20.04.2026 in rejecting the
claim of the Petitioner to continue him in service
till the age of 62 years in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15
Fin. (HR-IV FR & LR) Department, dated
31.01.2022 as illegal and arbitrary.

The Petitioner was initially appointed as Part-
time Vocational Junior Lecturer in the year 1992
in the Respondent No. 4 College. It is stated that
though the nomenclature of the post of the
Petitioner is stated to be Part-time, the Petitioner
is discharging full-time duties. It is stated that the
Petitioner and others filed W.P. No. 15963 of
2020 before this Court seeking regularization of
their services considering their long-standing
service, and the same was pending.
It is stated that similarly situated persons,
who were also discharging duties as Part-time
Vocational Junior Lecturers, also filed W.P. No.
24357 of 2020 before this Court seeking
regularization. This Court, taking note of the
similar Orders passed in W.P. No. 5009 of 2021
and batch dated 18.10.2024, allowed the said

Writ Petitions directing the Respondents therein
to regularize the services of the Petitioners
therein. Though a Writ Appeal was filed against the said Order, no interim orders were passed.
The said individuals are continuing until they attain the age of 62 years.
The Petitioner had filed W.P. No. 4975 of
2026 before this Court for extension of his
services and this Court by Order dated
23.02.2026 disposed of the same, directing the
Respondents therein to consider the case of the Petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the impugned Order was passed rejecting the claim of the Petitioner
for extension of age from 60 years to 62 years.
Heard Senior Counsel Sri M. Vijay Kumar
and the learned Government Pleader for
Services-III Sri G.V.L Murthy.
The Petitioner is discharging duties as a
Part-time Vocational Junior Lecturer since 1992.
The very fact that the Petitioner is discharging
duties for over 33 years shows that it is perennial
in nature and the nomenclature of Part-time is
only a camouflage. Though the Writ Petition filed
by the Petitioner seeking regularization is
pending before this Court, the Writ Petition No.
24357 of 2020 filed by similarly placed persons was allowed, and though a Writ Appeal was filed
thereon, no interim orders are passed. In effect, the persons appointed along with the Petitioner

Writ Petitions directing the Respondents therein

to regularize the services of the Petitioners

therein. Though a Writ Appeal was filed against
the said Order, no interim orders were passed.

The said individuals are continuing until they
attain the age of 62 years.

The Petitioner had filed W.P. No. 4975 of

2026 before this Court for extension of his

services and this Court by Order dated

23.02.2026 disposed of the same, directing the

Respondents therein to consider the case of the
Petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the impugned Order
was passed rejecting the claim of the Petitioner

for extension of age from 60 years to 62 years.

Heard Senior Counsel Sri M. Vijay Kumar

and the learned Government Pleader for

Services-III Sri G.V.L Murthy.

The Petitioner is discharging duties as a

Part-time Vocational Junior Lecturer since 1992.

The very fact that the Petitioner is discharging

duties for over 33 years shows that it is perennial

in nature and the nomenclature of Part-time is

only a camouflage. Though the Writ Petition filed

by the Petitioner seeking regularization is

pending before this Court, the Writ Petition No.

24357 of 2020 filed by similarly placed persons
was allowed, and though a Writ Appeal was filed

thereon, no interim orders are passed. In effect,
the persons appointed along with the Petitioner

are treated as regular employees and continuing the age of 62 years. Secondly, though the nomenclature of the post is "Part-time," the Petitioners were extended
the minimum time scale, and the same
emboldens the plea that the Petitioners are doing a full-time job. Thirdly, the Petitioner had been working for
more than 33 years is_prima facie_entitled for
regularization in the light of the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in**Jaggo v Union of India and others (**2024 SCC Online SC
3826),*Dharam Singh and others*vs. State of
*UP and another*(2025 Live Law (SC) 818 and
*Shripal* *and* *others* vs *Nagar* *Nigam,*
*Ghaziabad*(2025 SCC Online SC 221).
Therefore, it would beinappropriate to
discriminate the Petitioner by retiring him from
service merely on attaining the age of 60 years,
the following interim order is passed: i) The impugned Proceedings in RC No.Voc- 01/3211914/2026, dated 20.04.2026, proposing
to retire the Petitioner from service on attaining
the age of 60 years, is suspended. ii) The Respondent Authorities are directed to
reengage the Petitioner and continue him till the
age of 62 years pending further orders.

are treated as regular employees and continuing
the age of 62 years.
Secondly, though the nomenclature of the
post is "Part-time," the Petitioners were extended

the minimum time scale, and the same

emboldens the plea that the Petitioners are doing
a full-time job.
Thirdly, the Petitioner had been working for

more than 33 years is_prima facie_entitled for

regularization in the light of the recent judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in**Jaggo v Union
of India and others (**2024 SCC Online SC

3826),Dharam Singh and othersvs. State of

UP and another(2025 Live Law (SC) 818 and

Shripal
and
others
vs
Nagar
Nigam,

Ghaziabad(2025 SCC Online SC 221).

Therefore, it would beinappropriate to

discriminate the Petitioner by retiring him from

service merely on attaining the age of 60 years,

the following interim order is passed:
i) The impugned Proceedings in RC No.Voc-
01/3211914/2026, dated 20.04.2026, proposing

to retire the Petitioner from service on attaining

the age of 60 years, is suspended.
ii) The Respondent Authorities are directed to

reengage the Petitioner and continue him till the

age of 62 years pending further orders.

B.v.Gowtham Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.v.Gowtham Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Gopi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kantheti Vennkata Prasad Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Juluri Kanaka Durga Vs Union of India

Ch. Narasimhulu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Bangaru Venkata Gopinath Vs the State of Ap

M Suresh Kumar Vs the State of Ap