Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/1112/2024 of M. Padmamma, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, on 14 September 2026
1 APHC010017382024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 1112 OF 2024 Between: 1. M. Padmamma, D/o. M. Srinivasulu Reddy, aged about 41 years,
P a g e | 1
APHC010017382024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
Between:
1. M. Padmamma, D/o. M. Srinivasulu Reddy, aged about 41 years, Junior Assistant, R/o. Lingamgunta (V), Ananthasagarm (M), SPSR Nellore District.
2. MabbuVenkataVisalakshi, D/o. M. Venkata Srihari Rao, aged about 37 years, Junior Assistant, R/o. Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
3. Avala Venkateswara, S/o. A. Chinnabba, aged about 32 years, Office Subordinate, Ustikayalapenta, Yerravaripalem (M), Chittoor District.
4. Neelam Sai Saran, S/o. N. Radhakrishna Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 36 years, Junior Asst., R/o. D.No. 4-27, Jarugumalli Village, Kota (M), SPSR Nellore District.
5. M. Suresh, S/o. M.Subba Rayudu, aged about 36 years, Junior Assistant, Nagarajapadu Village, ChinamaChennuru(P), Marripadu(M), SPSR Nellore District.
6. Sk. Rabbani Basha, S/o. SilarSaheb, Aged about 35 years, Office Subordinate, R/ o. 1-126A, HR Babu Complex, Kothuru, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
7. Navuru Venugopal, S/o. N. Srinivasulu, aged about 37 years, Junior Assistant,R/o. 4-43, Alaganipadu, Vidavalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.-
8. Uppu Malakondaiah, S/o. Kondaiah. aged about 52 years, Office Subordinate, R/o. Nicklimate Village, Kodavalurmandal, SPSR Nellore District.
9. Kadiveti Dhanunjaya, S/o. K. Venkatayya, aged about 46 years, Office Subordinate, R/o. South Rajupalerm.ChintareddyPalem (M), SPSR Nellore District.
10. J.V. Ramanaiah, S/o. J. Nageswara Rao, aged about 48 years, Junior Assistant, Rio. 3-1-207,Chakalipet, nawabpet, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
P a g e | 2
11. Panthagiri Adinarayana, S/o P. Mastanayya, 36 years, Office Subordinate, R/o. Nellore.
12. Shaik Firoz, S/o. ShaikHabeeb, aged about 39 years, Junior Assistant, R/ o.
Rapur, SPSR Nellore Distrct.
13. Sarvepalli Seethamma, D/o. Penchalayya, aged about 46 years, Office Subordinate, R/o. H.No. 20/753, BhuvaneswariAgraharam, Mulapet, SPSR
Nellore District.
14. Bandla Surendra, S/o. BandlaJayaramaiah, aged about 34 years, Office Subordinate, R/o. South Rajupelem, Nellore District.
15. V. Sreenivasulu, S/o. V. Ramanaiah, aged about 53 years, Watchman, R/o.
KummaraKadaluru Dam, KhamballapalliPapur, SPSR Nellore District.
16. A. Narasimha Reddy, S/o. Ankireddy, aged about 45 years, Driver, R/o. R/o.
KummaraKadaluru Darn, Kamballapalli, Rapur, SPSR Nellore District.
...Petitioners
AND
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Prl. Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Secretariat, Amaravati Capital City, Velagapudi, Tulluru Mandal, Guntur District.
2. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Prl. Secretary, Department of Finance and Planning, Secretariat, Amaravati Capital City, Velagapudi, Tulluru Mandal, Guntur District.
3. Vikarama Simhapuri University, Rep., by its Registrar, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
...Respondents
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, order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in regularizing petitioners’ services in suitable post in the 3rd respondent University in granting time scale attached to the posts in which they are working on the principle of equal pay for equal work and as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14,16,21 and 39-d of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to regularize their services in suitable posts in the 3rd respondent university and direct the respondent to grant time scale to them with all consequential benefits P a g e | 3
with interest @ 12 percent per annum and grant costs of the proceedings and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024
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 direct the respondents to give minimum time scale to the petitioners and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024
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 direct the respondents not to terminate the petitioners pending hearing in the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: M PITCHAIAH
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES III
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP)
Counsel for the Respondents: CH.U.M.REDDY, SC For V.SIMHAPURI
UNIVERSITY, NLR
The Court made the following order:
P a g e | 4
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
1. This Writ Petition is filed for the following reliefs: “……….to issue, order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in regularizing petitioners’ services in suitable post in the 3rd respondent University in granting time scale attached to the posts in which they are working on the principle of equal pay for equal work and as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14,16,21 and 39-d of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to regularize their services in suitable posts in the 3rd respondent university and direct the respondent to grant time scale to them with all consequential benefits with interest @ 12 percent per annum and grant costs of the proceedings………..”
2. Case of the petitioners is that they have been working in the 3rd respondent University in various positions for more than ten years. They have been discharging their duties on par with regular employees against respective posts to which they were engaged. Petitioners are presently working on a contract basis. However, respondent authorities have not considered petitioners' case for extending the benefit of minimum time scale of pay or for regularization of their services.
3. Respondent No.3 University, in its counter-affidavit, contended that petitioners are being paid the minimum time scale of pay in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.7 Finance (HR.I-Plg. & Policy) Department, dated 17.01.2022. It is further contended as follows:
P a g e | 5
8……….. the respondent University followed the G.O.Ms.No.7 Finance (HR.I-Plg. & Policy) Department, 17.01.2022 and fixed the consolidated remuneration to the petitioners. When compared the minimum pay in the regular pay scale of the post and the remuneration paid as per the said GO to the concerned post it is to be noted that the Government has fixed the remuneration close to the minimum pay in the regular pay scale of the post. S.No Category of post Minimum of the pay in the regular pay sales in 2022 Enhanced remuneration fixed in G.O.Ms.No.7 Finance (HR.I-Plg. & Policy) Department, 17.01.2022 Difference in percentage between Col.(3) & (5)
1. Junior Assistant Rs.25,220 Rs.18,500 73.35%
2. Driver Rs.23,780 Rs.18,500 77.79%
3. Office Subordinate Rs.20,000 Rs.15,000 75.00%
9. ……. the Government / University has been paying more than 78% of the minimum of the pay in the time scale as a Policy of the State. The difference of parity of pay is only 22% to 26% between the regular and temporary employee. But, the responsibility and accountability of a regular employee are higher in grade than that of a temporary employee.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 University submitted that, as per the State policy, petitioners are being paid more than 78% of the minimum pay in the time scale. The remaining difference of 22% to 26% in comparison with regular employees is justified on the ground that regular employees bear greater responsibility and accountability. Accordingly, petitioners are being paid the minimum time scale substantially on par with regular employees.
5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on either side and the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that petitioners’ claim for the minimum of time scale of pay attached to the P a g e | 6
respective posts held by them requires consideration in accordance with the applicable Government Orders and rules.
6. Accordingly, respondent No.3-University is directed to extend to the petitioners the minimum time scale of pay attached to their respective posts, in accordance with the applicable Government Orders and rules, subject to their eligibility and the terms thereof.
7. Insofar as the relief of regularization of their services is concerned, petitioners are at liberty to submit their respective representations to respondent No.3-University, if not already submitted. Upon receipt of such representations, Respondent No.3-University shall consider the same and forward them, along with its recommendations and the relevant records, to respondents No.1 and 2 for appropriate consideration.
8. Respondents No.1 and 2 shall thereafter consider the representations of petitioners and take an appropriate decision regarding regularization of their services, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, Government Orders and the prevailing law, within a reasonable period.
9. It is made clear that extension of the minimum time scale of pay to petitioners shall not, by itself, create or confer any right upon them for regularization of their services, and the question of regularization shall be considered independently by the competent authority.
P a g e | 7
10. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 15.09.2026 SAK
P a g e | 8
Date: 15.09.2026
SAK