B Hebsi Vijaya Samrajyam Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY EDUCATION (IE) DEPARTMENT, A.P SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PINCODE 522238

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT, A.P SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PINCODE 522238

¶14

THE BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION AP, R.N0.114/C3, 2ND, 3RD 4TH FLOORS, ESWAR ELITE, BESIDE SONO-VISION, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PINCODE 522501 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONE

¶15

2

¶16

THE DIRECTORATE OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, R.NO. 114/C3, 2ND, 3RD 4TH FLOORS, ESWAR ELITE, BESIDE SONO-VISION, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PINCODE 522501 REP BY DIRECTOR/JOINT DIRECTOR 5.

¶17

THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT, PINCODE 516001 REP BY ITS JOINT DIRECTOR 6.

¶18

THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE BOYS, KADIRI, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT, PINCODE 515591 ...RESPONDENTS THE ADDRESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS, PROCESS ETC., ON THE ABOVE NAMED PETITIONER IS THAT OF HER COUNSEL TADDI NAGESWARA RAO, TADDI SOWMYA NAIDU, ADVOCATES, FLAT NO. 209 304, B-BLOCK, RIVER OAKS APARTMENTS, NEAR HP PETROL BUNK, NAVODAYA COLONY LANE, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P, 522501.

¶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 toleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the petitioner, who is working as Part-time Junior Lecturer (JLMTS) in the 6TH respondent College on par with the regular Junior Lecturers working in Government Junior Colleges, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service up to 62 years of age on par with regular Junior Lecturers and pass such other or further orders as the HonBle Court feels deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶22

3

¶23

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 Pleased to direct the respondents to consider and continue the petitioner, who is working as Part Time Junior Lecturer JLMTS in the 6TH respondent College, in service up to 62 years of age on par with the regular Junior Lecturers working in the said college, pending disposal of the writ petition

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.TADDI NAGESWARA RAO

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR SERVICES III

¶28

2.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:-

¶32

“… to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the petitioner, who is working as Part-time Junior Lecturer (JLMTS) in the 6^th respondent College on par with the regular Junior Lecturers working in Government Junior Colleges, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶33

4

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶35

It is the case of the petitioner that he has been working Parttime Junior Lecturer (JL-MTS) in the 6^th respondent Government Junior College on par with the regular Junior Lecturers working in Government Junior Colleges and Government has taken a policy decision to extend the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the Government Employees. Though the said benefit has been extended to all the Government Employees, but for the reason that the petitioner is a Contract Lecturer, the same has not been extended to him. In the identical matter came up before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.770 of 2022, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.02.2024 disposed of with the following direction:

¶36

“8) Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is partly allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set-aside and liberty is reserved to the Appellants to re-engage the Respondent, if they so desire, and also other similarly situated employees even beyond the age of “60 years” subject to the conditions stipulated in G.O. No. 15, dated 31.01.2022. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

This order shall not be construed as creating a right in any contractual employee to demand a direction in the nature of a mandamus to continue them in service upto or beyond the age of “62 years”.

¶38

5

¶39

Based on the above said directions, some of the similarly situated employees were considered. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 23.03.2026 to consider her case to continue in service up to 62 years on par with the regular Junior College Lecturers and the said representation of the petitioner may be considered as per the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the above said writ appeal and extend the benefit of age of superannuation to the petitioner.

¶40

Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 is only to the employees working on regular basis and as the petitioner is working on contract basis, she is not entitled for the benefit which was given in G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022. In fact the Division Bench of this Court has also observed that the petitioner/contract employee has no right to demand for a direction to continue till completion of 62 years on par with the regular employees.

¶41

Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsels and on perusal of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.770 of 2022, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is dispose of directing the

¶42

6

¶43

respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23.03.2026 as per the observations made by the Division Bench of this court and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs.

¶44

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

¶45

closed.

¶46

_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶47

Date:06.04.2026 GK

¶48

7

¶49

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH