WP/4814/2026 of PATURU RAVI KIRAN Vs THE STATE OF AP on 19 February 2026

1. PATURU RAVI KIRAN, S/O MADHUSUDHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC JUNIOR ASSISTANT (OUTSOURCING EMPLOYEE) O/O DISTRICT ENDOWMENTS OFFICER, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

2. CHANDRA TEJPAL SINGH,, S/O CHANDRA PAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC COMPUTER OPERATOR CUM DATA ENTRY OPERATOR (OUTSOURCING EMPLOYEE), O/O DISTRICT ENDOWMENTS OFFICER, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRIC

...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ENDOWMENTS) DEPARTMENT,

VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522237

2. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.521225

3. THE DISTRICT ENDOWMENTS OFFICER, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 524001

4. ANDHRA PRADESH CORPORATION FOR OUTSOURCED SERVICES, 2ND FLOOR, NTR ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK, PNBS, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRAPRADESH-520001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

...RESPONDENT(S):

The Court made the following ORDER:

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

“to issue a writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not extending the minimum time scale to the petitioners in the cadre of Junior Assistant and Computer Operator respectively, working in the 3rd respondent office as bad, illegal, arbitrary and violative of articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to extend the minimum time scale to the petitioners in their respective cadres and to extend all consequential benefits and pass…”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent authorities have not extended the minimum time scale to the petitioners, who are working in the cadres of Junior Assistant and Computer Operator, respectively, in the office of the 3rd respondent. It is contended that such action on the part of the respondents is bad, illegal, and arbitrary.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subject matter of the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.2254 of 2026, dated 28.01.2026, and seeks similar relief in the present case.

5. Considering the above, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to submit a representation to the respondent authorities. Upon such representation being made, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Jagjit Singh (2017 (1) SCC 148), and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE D RAMESH 20.02.2026

klk

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

WRIT PETITION NO: 4814/2026

20.12.2026 klk