WP/5946/2026 of G REDDEPPA Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 19 April 2026

1. G REDDEPPA, S/O K. C. VENKATRAMAIAH, AGED 63 YEARS, R/O 16/331-39, REDDY AND REDDY COLONY, PANAGALLU, SRIKALAHASTI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT (EARLIER CHITTOOR DISTIRCT)

2. D. ANANDA REDDY,, S/O D. GOVINDA REDDY, AGED

YEARS, R/O. 1-153 ERRACHENU (VILLAGE) KOLKATA (POST), YADAMARI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT (EARLIER CHITTOOR DISTIRCT)

3. . G. KUMARASWAMY,, S/O G. RADHAIAH, AGED 64 YEARS, R/O. 2-26, CHIGURUWADA (VILLAGE) AND POST, TIRUAPTI RURAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT (EARLIER CHITTOOR DISTIRCT)

4. J. CHANDRASEKHAR RAJ, , S/O J. MUNASWAMY RAJU AGED 63 YEARS, R/O 5-79, NAIDU COLONY, 1ST STREET NEAR PADALA MANDAPAM,

AVILALA VILLAGE, TIRUPATI RURAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT (EARLIER CHITTOOR DISTIRCT)

5. G. NAGARAJA,, S/O G. SIDDAIAH, AGED 64 YEARS, R/O. 4-92 BC, COLONY.

BHAKARAPELA, CHINNAGOTTIGALLU MANDAL, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT (EARLIER CHITTOOR DISTIRCT)

6. T. VENKATARAMANA REDDY,, S/O. T. SUBBANNA AGED 62 YEARS, R/O. 19-3-1/B.9/A2, POSTAL COLONY, KORAMEENUGUNTA, TIRUPATI. TIRUPATI DISTRICT (EARLIER CHITTOOR DISTIRCT)

7. S. SIKINDAR BABU,, S/O. S. MUNNAR, AGED 62 YEARS, R/O. 5-15, BOMMALA QUARTERS, TUDA QUARTERS, VIA MANGALAM, PO. MANGALEM, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT (EARLIER CHITTOOR DISTIRCT)

8. K. NATARAJ,, S/O. K. KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED 65 YEARS, R/O. 11/90, JAYASANKAR COLONY, MANGALAM POST, KARAKAMBADI ROAD, TIRUAPTI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT (EARLIER CHITTOOR DISTIRCT)

9. S. VENU,, S/O. S. GOVINDAIAH, AGED 63 YEARS, R/O. 2-144, YELLANKIVARIPALLI POST, PULICHARLA MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT (EARLIER CHITTOOR DISTIRCT)

10. M. CHAKRAPANI,, S/O. M. NARAYANA SWAMY, AGED

YEARS, R/O. 1-1697, VEERAMUSTIPALYAM STREET, SREEKALAHASTI POST, TIRUPATI DISTRICT (EARLIER CHITTOOR DISTIRCT)

11. E.N. ANJANEYULU, S/O. E. N. GIRIAPPA, AGED 63 YEARS, R/O.6-5-40, VENKATARAO NAGAR, NEW TOWN, ANANTHAPURAM, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF

SECRETARY,

FOREST, ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522

228.

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 228

3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, GOVERNMENT OF

A.P,

ARANYA BHAVAN, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 004

4. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, ANANTHAPURAM, ANANTHAPURAM DISTIRCT - 515 001

...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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to directing the respondent authorities to extend the benefits that was given to the similarly situated persons as per G.O.Ms. 222 dated 08.05.2013 and also in accordance with W.A. 250 of 2024 and by declaring action of the respondent in not extending the benefits as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from subjecting the petitioner to hostile discrimination, in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 consider the claims of the petitioners in extending the benefits as per W.A. 250 of 2024, W.P. 44132 of 2017 and W.P. 5072 of 2017, in the interest of justice and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. C SRINIVASA BABA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 5946 of 2026 The Court made the following Order:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “… to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to extend the benefits that was given to the similarly situated persons as per G.O.Ms. 222 dated 08.05.2013 and also in accordance with W.A. 250 of 2024 and by declaring action of the respondent in not extending the benefits as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from subjecting the petitioner to hostile discrimination, in the interest of justice and pass…”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II.

3. Petitioners are the Beat Constables. Identical persons have approached the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing OA No.3813 of 2008. The said OA was disposed of vide Order dated 07.12.2010, by rectifying the pay scales and extending the pay scale of Rs.1875-3750/- vide G.O.Rt.No.222 dated 08.05.2013. Basing on the said Government Order, one similar employee from Mahaboob Nagar District have preferred a Writ Petition vide WP No.5072 of 2017, for pay protection on par with similarly situated employees, wherein the Hon’ble High Court allowed the Writ Petition by Order dated 06.07.2023, directing the respondents to extend the benefit of G.O.Rt.No.222 dated 08.05.2013 to the petitioner therein. Aggrieved by the said Order, the State preferred Appeal vide Writ Appeal No.250 of 2024 on the file of the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, wherein the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Appeal vide Judgment dated 08.04.2024 with the following observations: “6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, is of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the Writ Petition in favour of the respondents on the ground that the respondents are similarly situated of that of Ch.Venkataiah and others in whose favour benefits were extended vide G.O.Rt.No.222 dated 08.05.2013. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.” Pursuant to the Judgment dated 08.04.2024 in WA No.250 of 2024, the State of Telangana extended the said benefit vide G.O.Rt.No.59 dated 22.04.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners basing on the record submits that the petitioners are similarly situated persons and are entitled to the same benefit and as such, the same benefit may be extended the petitioners herein.

5. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the Order in OS No.3813 of 2008 and also the order passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.5072 of 2017 and WA No.250 of 2024, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Rt.No.222, dated 08.05.2013 and the said benefits be extended to the petitioners with all the consequential benefits, within a period of three (03) months, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

__________________ JUSTICE D RAMESH Date: 20.04.2026 PSA