Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/24426/2023 of VEMURU SUDHAKAR Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 6 July 2026
for orders : ---------- Date of pronouncement :07.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010471272023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3573] TUESDAY, THE 7th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO:
Date of reserved for orders : ---------- Date of pronouncement :07.07.2026
Date of uploading :
APHC010471272023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 7th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
Between:
1. VEMURU SUDHAKAR, , S/O. V. MUNNAIAH, AGED 48 YEARS, OCC.
HOSTEL WORKER, S.V. ARTS COLLEGE HOSTEL, R/O. H.NO.6-50, 6TH WARD HABITATION, 6TH WARD VILLAGE, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT
AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAM, TIRUPATI REP BY ITS
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIRUPATI
3. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, , TTD BOARD, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN, TTD BUILDINGS, TIRUPATI
4. THE DEVASTHANAMS EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, , 0/O. THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, T.T. DEVASTHANAMS, TIRUPATHI
5. S V ARTS COLLEGE HOSTEL, TIRUPATHI REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
AND WARDEN, TIRUPATHI
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not regularizing the services and in not extending the Minimum Time Scale to the Petitioner on par with similarly placed persons as arbitrary, illegal, irregular, violative of Article 14 and 19 of Indian Constitution, unjustified and unsustainable and consequently direct the Respondents to regularize the services of Petitioner and extend Minimum Time Scale for rendering services in S.V. Arts College Hostel, Tirupati and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2023
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 may be pleased to direct the Respondents to forthwith extend Minimum Time Scale to the Petitioner for rendering services in S.V. Arts College Hostel, Tirupati and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SODUM ANVESHA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. S N CHIDAMBARA SASTRY
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
The Court made the following:
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:
The writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner and in not extending the Minimum Time Scale to the petitioner on par with the similarly placed candidates, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been working as a contingent worker since 07.12.1993 at S.V.Arts College. The respondents utilized the services of the petitioner till March, 1999, and thereafter discontinued his services for a short period. Subsequently, he was engaged as a casual labour from the year 2005 and thereafter engaged as an outsourcing contract worker from July, 2010, and has continued to render his services till date. The petitioner, along with other persons, made a representation on 19.04.2012 to respondent No.2 requesting absorption and regularization of his services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. So far as wages are concerned, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to the Minimum Time Scale as per the rules invoked.
3. Heard Ms.Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.V.Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for TTD representing Sri S.N.Chidambara Sastry, learned counsel on record representing respondent No.2.
4. Ms.V.Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for TTD, representing Sri S.N.Chidambara Sastry, learned counsel on record representing respondent No.2, submitted that, so far as the Minimum Time Scale is concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is working under respondent No.2 and that he is entitled to the Minimum Time Scale. Insofar as regularization is concerned, it is for the respondent authorities to consider the same and take an appropriate decision.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a similar issue fell for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.8801 of 2021 and batch, wherein, by order dated 23.01.2026, this Court passed the following order:- “15. In view of the above, placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Others, and Dharam Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P & another and further placing reliance on the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.29403 and 38488 of 2018 dated 03.04.2018, the Writ Petitions are disposed of granting liberty to each of the petitioners to file a separate representation seeking Regularization of their services/Minimum Time Scale, before the 2nd respondent – Board, mentioning the date of appointment and furnishing details regarding the duties discharged by them, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such representations, the 2nd respondent –Board, after calling for necessary reports, if any, from the Executive Officer of TTD, shall pass appropriate orders within a period of six (6) months thereafter.
16. Till final orders are passed on the representations to be filed by the petitioners, the 2nd respondent shall continue the services of the petitioners, if they are presently continuing, and shall continue to pay the minimum time scale as directed by this Court in earlier interim orders. During the pendency of consideration of the representations, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps to discontinue the services of the petitioners.”
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit, this Court deems it fit to direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation made by the petitioner seeking regularization of his service. The 2nd respondent is also directed to pay the Minimum Time Scale to the petitioner. Pending consideration of the petitioner’s representation, his services shall not be discontinued.
7. At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner may make a fresh representation furnishing all the relevant details and the same will be considered and appropriate action will be taken in accordance with law.
8. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation within a period of one (01) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of the same, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The 2nd respondent is also directed to pay the Minimum Time Scale to the petitioner. Pending consideration of the representation made by the petitioner, his services shall not be discontinued.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Dt.07.07.2026 JLV Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No
Dt.07.07.2026 JLV