Disposed¶25

T Jayaramudu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Mar 2026WP/892/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Minimum of pay scale; equal pay parity with regular employees; Junior Lineman; Articles 14 and 21; State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017 (1) see 148); mandamus under Article 226; pay scale from date of appointment; interim order dated 26.11.2025 implemented; writ petition closed, no order as to costs; Andhra Pradesh; APEPDCL; counsel Kavitha Gottipati for petitioners, V V Satish (SC for APEPDCL) for respondents.

What did the court decide?

No further orders; the interim relief stands implemented, the respondent authorities being paid/paying the minimum pay scale/wages attached to the posts in which the petitioners work; writ petition closed with no order as to costs. ¶25

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioners for payment of the minimum pay scale attached to the post of Junior Lineman on par with regular employees in the category of Junior Lineman is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the judgment in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh?

¶22

Court's answer

In view of the order dated 26.11.2025, the respondent authorities are paying the minimum pay scale/wages attached to the posts in which the petitioners are respectively working; the interim order having been duly implemented and effected, no further orders are required to be passed in the writ petition.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 32995 of 2025 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Special Original Jurisdiction; Justice D Ramesh) — M Hari Krishna and Others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others. Filed under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus declaring illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 the respondents' action in not considering the petitioners for payment of the minimum pay scale attached to the post of Junior Lineman on par with regular employees in that category, and contrary to State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh ((2017 (1) see 148)), with a consequential direction to pay the minimum time scale as Junior Lineman from the date of appointment. The Court noted that, in view of its order dated 26.11.2025, the respondent authorities were already paying the minimum pay scale/wages attached to the posts in which the petitioners were respectively working; the interim order having been duly implemented and effected, no further orders were required. The writ petition was accordingly closed, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood closed, and there was no order as to costs.

¶1

APHC010638272025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3208]

¶5

THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 32995/2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

M Hari Krishna and Others

¶10

...PETITIONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶13

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶15

1.KAVITHA GOTTIPATI

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶17

1.V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL)

¶18

2.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶19

3.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶20

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶21

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶22

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of petitioners for payment of minimum of pay scale attached to the post of Junior Lineman on par with regular employees in the category of Junior Lineman is ileegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the judgement reported in State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others (2017 (1) see 148) and consequently direct the resondents to pay the Minimum time scale to the petitioners as Junior Lineman on par with regular employees of Junior Lineman with effect from their date of appointment and pass…”

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶24

In view of the order passed by this Court on 26.11.2025, the respondent authorities are paying the minimum pay scale/wages attached to the posts in which the petitioners are respectively working. Therefore, the interim order has been duly implemented and effected. Hence, no further orders are required to be passed in the writ petition.

¶25