Vemuru Sudhakar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Vemuru Sudhakar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions: petitioner to submit a fresh representation within one month; respondent No.2 (TTD) to consider it and pass appropriate orders within six months; Minimum Time Scale to be paid to the petitioner; services not to be discontinued pending consideration of the representation; no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications closed as sequel.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' failure to regularize the petitioner's services and to extend the Minimum Time Scale on par with similarly placed candidates is arbitrary and illegal, and what directions should issue. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court directed the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation seeking regularization of his service.

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.2 (TTD) is directed to pay the Minimum Time Scale to the petitioner.

Key takeaways

Pending consideration of the petitioner's representation, his services shall not be discontinued.ratio¶42
The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation furnishing relevant details within one month of receipt of the order, and respondent No.2 shall consider it and pass appropriate orders within six months of receipt.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Single Judge - Balaji Medamalli, J.) - W.P.No.24426/2023, disposed of on 07.07.2026. A hostel worker of S.V. Arts College Hostel, Tirupati (continuously engaged as contingent worker from 07.12.1993, then casual labour from 2005 and outsourcing contract worker from July 2010) sought regularization of service and grant of Minimum Time Scale on par with similarly placed candidates, invoking Articles 14 and 19 and citing G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, his representation of 19.04.2012 to TTD having gone unconsidered. The TTD Standing Counsel conceded that the petitioner works under respondent No.2 and is entitled to the Minimum Time Scale. On regularization, counsel drew attention to a Coordinate Bench order dated 23.01.2026 in W.P.No.8801 of 2021 and batch (which had relied on Jaggo v. Union of India, Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., and a 2018 Coordinate Bench decision). Adopting that course, the Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation within one month, respondent No.2 to consider and pass orders within six months, payment of Minimum Time Scale in the interim, and non-discontinuation of services pending such consideration. Disposed of, no costs.

[3573]

Date of reserved for orders : ---------Date of pronouncement :07.07.2026 Date of uploading :

APHC010471272023

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

TUESDAY, THE 7^th DAY OF JULY 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

WRIT PETITION NO: 24426/2023

Between:

VEMURU SUDHAKAR, , S/O. V. MUNNAIAH, AGED 48 YEARS, OCC. HOSTEL WORKER, S.V. ARTS COLLEGE HOSTEL, R/O. H.NO.6-50, 6TH WARD HABITATION, 6TH WARD VILLAGE, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

THE TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAM, TIRUPATI REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIRUPATI

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, , TTD BOARD, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN, TTD BUILDINGS, TIRUPATI

THE DEVASTHANAMS EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, , 0/O. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, T.T. DEVASTHANAMS, TIRUPATHI

S V ARTS COLLEGE HOSTEL, TIRUPATHI REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL AND WARDEN, TIRUPATHI

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not regularizing the services and in not extending the Minimum Time Scale to the Petitioner on par with similarly placed persons as

arbitrary, illegal, irregular, violative of Article 14 and 19 of Indian Constitution, unjustified and unsustainable and consequently direct the Respondents to regularize the services of Petitioner and extend Minimum Time Scale for rendering services in S.V. Arts College Hostel, Tirupati and pass such

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

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 may be pleased to direct the Respondents to forthwith extend Minimum Time Scale to the Petitioner for rendering services in S.V. Arts College Hostel, Tirupati and pass such

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.SODUM ANVESHA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.S N CHIDAMBARA SASTRY

2.GP FOR SERVICES II

The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 24426/2023

ORDER:

The writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner and in not extending the Minimum Time Scale to the petitioner on par with the similarly placed candidates, as illegal and arbitrary.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been working as a contingent worker since 07.12.1993 at S.V.Arts College. The respondents utilized the services of the petitioner till March, 1999, and thereafter discontinued his services for a short period. Subsequently, he was engaged as a casual labour from the year 2005 and thereafter engaged as an outsourcing contract worker from July, 2010, and has continued to render his services till date. The petitioner, along with other persons, made a representation on 19.04.2012 to respondent No.2 requesting absorption and regularization of his services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. So far as wages are concerned, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to the Minimum Time Scale as per the rules invoked.

Heard Ms.Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.V.Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for TTD representing Sri S.N.Chidambara Sastry, learned counsel on record representing respondent No.2.

Ms.V.Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for TTD, representing Sri S.N.Chidambara Sastry, learned counsel on record representing respondent No.2, submitted that, so far as the Minimum Time Scale is concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is working under respondent No.2 and that he is entitled to the Minimum Time Scale. Insofar as regularization is concerned, it is for the respondent authorities to consider the same and take an appropriate decision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a similar issue fell for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.8801 of 2021 and batch, wherein, by order dated 23.01.2026, this Court passed the following order:-

“15. In view of the above, placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Others , and Dharam Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P & another and further placing reliance on the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.29403 and 38488 of 2018 dated 03.04.2018 , the Writ Petitions are disposed of granting liberty to each of the petitioners to file a separate representation seeking Regularization of their services/Minimum Time Scale, before the 2nd respondent – Board, mentioning the date of appointment and furnishing details regarding the duties discharged by them, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such representations, the 2nd respondent –Board, after calling for necessary reports, if any, from the Executive Officer of TTD, shall pass appropriate orders within a period of six (6) months thereafter.

16. Till final orders are passed on the representations to be filed by the petitioners, the 2^nd respondent shall continue the services of the petitioners, if they are presently continuing, and shall continue to pay the minimum time scale as directed by this Court in earlier interim orders. During the pendency of consideration of the representations, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps to discontinue the services of the petitioners.”

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit, this Court deems it fit to direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation made by the petitioner seeking regularization of his service. The 2^nd respondent is also directed to pay the Minimum Time Scale to the petitioner. Pending consideration of the petitioner’s representation, his services shall not be discontinued.

At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner may make a fresh representation furnishing all the relevant details and the same will be considered and appropriate action will be taken in accordance with law.

In that view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation within a period of one (01) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of the same, the 2^nd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The 2^nd respondent is also directed

to pay the Minimum Time Scale to the petitioner. Pending consideration of the

representation made by the petitioner, his services shall not be discontinued.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

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

________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

Dt.07.07.2026 JLV

Whether the order is :

Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

35

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

WRIT PETITION NO: 24426/2023

Dt.07.07.2026

JLV