K.Jagannadham Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.JAGANNADHAM, S/O LATE VEERA RAGHAVULU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, WORKING AS FULL TIME CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, O/0 DISTRICT SERICULTURE OFFICE, HEAD OFFICE AT NARSARAOPET , PALNADU DISTRICT.

¶10

SMT.Y.VIJAYA, W/O LATE RAMA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS FULL TIME CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, O/0 DISTRICT SERICULTURE OFFICE, PALNADAU DISTRICT, HEAD OFFICE AT NARSARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE AND CO.OPERATION (H AND S) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶16

THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶17

2

¶18

DR,J W.P.No.35804 of 2025

¶19

THE DISTRICT SERICULTURE OFFICER, PALNADU, PALNADU DISTRICT.

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

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 topleased to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing petitioners services in terms of orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (2006 (4) SCC 1) from the date of date of completion of 10 years of service as followed by this Hon'ble Court in WP No.24377/2007 dt. 8.9.2010 (2011 (1) ALD 234) as confirmed in WA No.782/2010 dt. 10.6.2013 and also in WP No. 27217/2017 dt. 19.9.2017 (2018 (2) ALD 282) and in WP No.23057/2019 dt. 21.4.2020 ( 2020 (4) ALD 379) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court orders in Dharam Singh Case Reported in 2025 Law Suit (SC) 1122 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to regularize petitioners services from the date of completion of 10 years as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case as followed by this Hon'ble Court in WP No.27217/2017, dt. 19.9.2017 and in several cases as referred supra with all attendant benefits

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶23

1.B BHASKARA REDDY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶26

2.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶27

3

¶28

DR,J W.P.No.35804 of 2025

¶29

The Court made the following ORDER:-

¶30

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶31

“…to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing petitioners services in terms of orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (2006 (4) SCC 1) from the date of date of completion of 10 years of service as followed by this Hon'ble Court in WP No.24377/2007 dt. 8.9.2010 (2011 (1) ALD 234) as confirmed in WA No.782/2010 dt. 10.6.2013 and also in WP No. 27217/2017 dt. 19.9.2017 (2018 (2) ALD 282) and in WP No.23057/2019 dt. 21.4.2020 ( 2020 (4) ALD 379) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court orders in Dharam Singh Case Reported in 2025 Law Suit (SC) 1122 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to regularize petitioners services from the date of completion of 10 years as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case as followed by this Hon'ble Court in WP No.27217/2017, dt. 19.9.2017 and in several cases as referred supra with all attendant benefits…”

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶33

Considering the submissions and on perusal of the record, this court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case and the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner based on the record and also the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaggo Vs Union of India¹ wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:

¶34

“ … It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had been served

¶35

1 AIR 2025 SC 296

¶36

4 DR,J W.P.No.35804 of 2025

¶37

continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure…”

¶38

and also the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dharam Singh Vs State of UP² . The said exercise should be completed within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

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

¶40

_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶41

Date: 02.02.2026

¶42

Dvs

¶43