Dismissed

V Nagabhushanam v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Sept 2026WP/25495/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh rejected the petitioners' claim for retrospective preservation of proportionate leave. Ruling that the governing order had attained finality and the petition was filed with inordinate delay and laches, the Court dismissed the writ petition and vacated interim orders.

What did the court decide?

The relief sought for was to direct respondents to extend benefits of preservation of proportionate leaves with retrospective effect.

V Nagabhushanam Vs the State of Ap — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

P a g e | 1

¶2

Date of reserved for orders : 01.09.2026 Date of pronouncement : 11.09.2026 Date of uploading : 15.09.2026

¶3

APHC010493092023

¶4

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

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 11^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 25495 OF 2023

¶9

Between:

¶10

V NAGABHUSHANAM, S/o late V.Subbaiah, Aged 66 years, Retired Junior Lecturer in Physics, Resident of H.No.3-3-278, Main Road, Pulivendula, Kadapa District - 516 390, A.P.

¶11

V.Pedda Gangi Reddy,, S/o V.Pulla Reddy, aged 66 years, Retired Junior Lecturer in Maths, Resident of H.No.51/104, B1, N.R.Nagar, Kothapeta, Rayachoty - 516 219, A.P.

¶12

C.Krishna Murthy,, S/o. late C.C.Anjaneyulu, aged 66 years, Retired Junior Lecturer in Physics, Resident of H.No.6/64, Fort Street, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District - 516 434, A.P.

¶13

...Petitioners

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF AP, Represented by its Special Chief Secretary, School Education (IE) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶16

The Special Commissioner of Intermediate Education, State of Andhra Pradesh, 4th Lane, Lakshmipuram, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.

¶17

The State ofAndhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

P a g e | 2

¶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 or order, direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Govt.Memo.No.1996829/IE/A2/2019, Dated 16.05.2019 and consequent Memo.No.782453/IE/A1/2019-4 dated 01.08.2023 issued by the 1^st respondent and Deputy Secretary to Government on behalf of the 1^st respondent respectively is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory, in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to extend the benefits of preservation of proportionate leaves to the petitioners in terms of G.O.Rt.No.421 dated 04.06.2001 and G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 05.02.2002 with retrospective effect i.e., from 1998-99 to 2009-10 and pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶22

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 suspend the operation of the Govt.Memo.No.1996829/1E/A2/2019, Dated 16.05.2019 and Memo.No.782453/IE/A1/2019-4 dated 01.08.2023 issued by the 1^st respondent and Deputy Secretary to Government on behalf of the 1^st respondent respectively and direct the respondents to extend the benefits of preservation of proportionate leaves to the petitioners in terms of G.O.Rt.No.421 dated 04.06.2001 and G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 05.02.2002 with retrospective effect i.e., from 1998-99 to 2009-10, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition; and pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶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 grant leave for file of this counter

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioners: V PADMANABHA RAO

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES III Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶27

The Court made the following order:

¶28

P a g e | 3

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO: 25495 OF 2023

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

1. This Writ Petition is filed for the following reliefs:

¶33

“…to issue a Writ or order, direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Govt.Memo.No.1996829/IE/ A2/2019, Dated 16.05.2019 and consequent Memo.No.782453/IE/A1/ 2019-4 dated 01.08.2023 issued by the 1^st respondent and Deputy Secretary to Government on behalf of the 1^st respondent respectively is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory, in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to extend the benefits of preservation of proportionate leaves to the petitioners in terms of G.O.Rt.No.421 dated 04.06.2001 and G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 05.02.2002 with retrospective effect i.e., from 1998-99 to 2009-10…”

¶34

2. The facts of the case, as narrated by petitioners in the writ petition, are briefly set out hereunder:

¶35

(i) Petitioners were appointed as Junior Lecturers in various aided junior colleges and, upon attaining the age of superannuation, retired from service. Claim of the petitioners is that they are entitled to the benefit of preservation of proportionate earned leave for the period during which they were prevented from availing summer vacation, on par with the teaching and non-teaching staff of Government Junior Colleges.

¶36

(ii) It is the case of the petitioners that, under G.O.Rt.No.421, dated 04.06.2001, and G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 05.02.2002, benefit of preservation of proportionate earned leave was extended to the staff of

¶37

P a g e | 4

¶38

Government Junior Colleges. The Aided Junior College Employees Association, of which the petitioners claim to be members, sought extension of the same benefit to the employees of aided junior colleges with retrospective effect i.e., from the years 1998 - 1999 to 2009 - 2010, filed W.P.No.13020 of 2014, wherein the combined High Court was pleased to grant interim order dated 25.04.2014 directing the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the Association. Subsequently, petitioners also submitted a representation dated 11.07.2022 seeking sanction of preservation of 166 days of earned leave.

¶39

(iii) Government, vide Memo No.1996829/IE/ A2/2019, dated 16.05.2019, and the consequential Memo No.782453/IE/A1/2019-4, dated 01.08.2023, declined to extend the benefit retrospectively, citing fiscal and policy considerations. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶40

2. Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit contending that the benefit of preservation of proportionate earned leave was initially extended to the teaching and non-teaching staff of Government Junior Colleges under G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 16.01.1981, G.O.Rt.No.421, dated 04.06.2001, and G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 05.02.2002. Subsequently, by G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 09.03.2011, the said benefit was extended prospectively, i.e., from 09.03.2011, to the teaching and non-teaching staff of Private Aided Junior

¶41

P a g e | 5

¶42

Colleges, subject to budgetary provisions. It is further submitted that, pursuant to the interim order dated 25.04.2014 in W.P.No.13020 of 2014, Government considered representations of the Aided Junior College Employees Association and, by Memo dated 16.05.2019, rejected the request for extending the benefit retrospectively from the academic year 1998-99 on account of fiscal and policy considerations. It is further stated that petitioners were not parties to W.P.No.13020 of 2014 and, therefore, cannot challenge the Memo dated 16.05.2019 issued pursuant to the directions in the said writ petition. It is also contended that the consequential Memo dated 01.08.2023, issued in response to the representations subsequently submitted by the petitioners, merely reiterated the earlier decision and does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned proceedings warranting interference of this Court.

¶43

3. Heard Sri V. Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader.

¶44

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that respondent authorities have extracted work from petitioners on par with the employees working in Government Junior Colleges. Therefore, denying the same benefits to the petitioners, particularly in respect of leave and other service conditions, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the leave rules are applicable to the lecturers working in Government Junior Colleges are equally applicable to the petitioners, who are performing duties and discharging responsibilities on par with such lecturers. It

¶45

P a g e | 6

¶46

is further submitted that the Association of Aided Junior Colleges had earlier filed W.P.No.13020 of 2014 before the combined High Court at Hyderabad, wherein an interim order was passed directing the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners therein. Pursuant to the said interim order, respondent No.1 issued Memo No.1996829/IE/A2/2019, dated 16.05.2019, rejecting the request of the Aided Junior Colleges for extending the benefit claimed for the period from 1998–99 to 2009–10. Though the said Memo was issued, it was not communicated to the concerned Aided Junior Colleges or to the petitioners. Consequently, the petitioners had no occasion to challenge the said order earlier, as they were unaware of its existence. In the absence of communication of the said Memo, the question of delay or laches on the part of the petitioners in challenging the same in the year 2023 does not arise. Accordingly, the writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay or laches.

¶47

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that merely because the petitioners are working in private aided colleges, they cannot be subjected to discriminatory treatment. When the duties and responsibilities discharged by the petitioner are on par with those of the lecturers working in Government Junior Colleges, there is no justification for treating the petitioners differently. Such differential treatment, solely on the ground that petitioners are employed in private aided colleges, amount to discrimination and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶48

P a g e | 7

¶49

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned proceedings were issued on 16.05.2019, whereas the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition only after a lapse of more than four years. The representations submitted by the petitioners on 13.06.2023 and 30.06.2023 were made only with a view to create a fresh cause of action and thereby overcome the delay in challenging the proceedings dated 16.05.2019. Mere submission of representations, after an inordinate lapse of time, cannot revive a stale claim or furnish a fresh cause of action to the petitioners.

¶50

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the Government, after duly considering the representation submitted by the Association of Private Aided Junior Colleges and the report of the Director of Intermediate Education, issued G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 09.03.2011, extending the benefit of preservation of proportionate leave, prospectively, to the teaching and non-teaching staff working in Private Aided Junior Colleges in the State, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 16.01.1981, and G.O.Ms.No.421, dated 04.06.2001. The said Government Order was issued granting benefit only with effect from 09.03.2011, and the same has attained finality, as it was never challenged by the concerned persons. It is therefore contended that the petitioners cannot, at this belated stage, seek to reopen the issue in respect of the period prior to 09.03.2011 by relying upon the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the writ petition referred to supra. The said writ petition was filed by the Association of

¶51

P a g e | 8

¶52

Private Aided Junior Colleges, and, pursuant to the interim order passed therein, the competent authority considered the claim and ultimately rejected the same. Petitioners, if aggrieved by the said rejection order, ought to have challenged it within a reasonable period and the present writ petition, having been filed after an unexplained and inordinate delay, suffers from delay and laches and is therefore liable to be dismissed.

¶53

8. However, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the said order was neither communicated to the petitioners herein nor otherwise brought to their notice. No material has been placed on record to establish that the said order was not communicated to the petitioners in the writ petition pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana. However, the petitioners herein were not parties to the said writ petition. Therefore, the respondent authorities were not under any obligation to serve a copy of the said order upon the petitioners herein. In the absence of any material establishing that the petitioners had no knowledge of the said order, their contention that the order was not communicated to them cannot be accepted merely on the ground that the same was passed in the earlier writ proceedings.

¶54

9. Be that as it may, even leaving aside the aforesaid rejection order, the G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 09.03.2011 specifically provides for preservation of proportionate leave with effect from a prospective date. The said Government Order was neither challenged by the petitioners nor by the Association representing the Private Aided Junior Colleges. Consequently, the said Government Order has attained finality.

¶55

P a g e | 9

¶56

10. Having allowed G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 09.03.2011, to remain unchallenged for more than fifteen years, the petitioners cannot now invoke the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction to extend the benefit of preservation of proportionate leave retrospectively for the period from 1998–99 to 2009–10. Petitioners have not placed any material or demonstrated any legally sustainable ground warranting interference with the rejection order as the same was issued in terms of the said Government Order at this belated stage.

¶57

11. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of considered view that the writ petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches. Further, G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 09.03.2011, having attained finality, the petitioners cannot seek retrospective extension of the benefit of preservation of proportionate leave for

¶58

the period from 1998–99 to 2009–10. Accordingly, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought for.

¶59

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶60

Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶61

__________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶62

Date: 11.09.2026 SAK

¶63

Whether the order is: