Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/10657/2025 of S SRINIVASA RAO Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 5 February 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 10657/2025 Between: 1. S SRINIVASA RAO, S/O VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC JR. ASST.
APHC010202982025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 10657/2025
Between:
1. S SRINIVASA RAO, S/O VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 54
YEARS, OCC JR. ASST. O/O PRI SUB DIVISION, PONNUR, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. G. ANKAMA RAO,, S/O BAGHVANTHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 54
YEARS, OCC OFFICE SUBORDINATE, O/O PRI SUB DIVISION, TADIKONDA AT GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. D. SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O KOTESHWAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 52
YEARS, OCC JR. ASST. O/O PRI SUB DIVISION, PONNUR, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
4. G.S.K BURAN SAHEB,, S/O RAHMAN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC
OFFICE SUBORDINATE O/O PRI SUB DIVISION, PEDDAKURAPADU, AT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
5. GSK MAHABUB SUBHANI,, S/O BURAN SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 57
YEARS, OCC OFFICE SUBORDINATE O/O PRI SUB DIVISION, PEDDAKURAPADU, AT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
6. S.K. NOOHRUNUZILLA, S/O EDIA HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 59
YEARS, OCC OFFICE SUBORDINATE O/O PRI SUB DIVISION, TADIKONDA, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY. PANCHAYATHI RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI.
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY.
FINANCE
AND
PLAINING
DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.
3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER P RAJ, CIRCLE OFFICE, Z.P
COMPOUND, NAGARAMPALEM, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF P RAJ, DEPARTMENT, STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADESH OPP PWD GROUNDS, BANDAR ROAD, VIJAYAWADA
TOWN, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI AND PIU DIVISION, BAPATLA, BAPATIA DISTRICT, (ERST WHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT)
...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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not granting the monetary benefits along with annual grade increments and other benefits to the petitioners from the date of issuance of minimum time scale on par with similarly situated employees as illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional and also violate of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to grant annual grade increments and other monetary benefits from the date of issuance of the minimum time scale to the petitioners as per the precedents of this Honble Court and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 grant monetary and other benefits to the petitioners from the date of grant of minimum time scale on par with other similar granted persons pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. Pilla N.V.L.Narayana Aditya
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I
2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING
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 present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
“to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order i to declaring the action of the respondents in not granting the monetary benefits along with annual grade increments and other benefits to the petitioners from the date of issuance of minimum time scale on par with similarly situated employees as illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional and also violate of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to grant annual grade increments and other monetary benefits from the date of issuance of the minimum time scale to the petitioners as per the precedents of this Honble Court and pass such….”
2. Heard Sri P.N.V.L.Narayana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that based on the orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.7335 of 2010, the Government has considered and extended the benefits to the applicants in that O.A and the petitioners herein are also identically situated but the same benefit was not extended to them. It is further contended that as against the orders in the above said O.A, the respondent authorities i.e. Government filed W.P.No.24130 of 2011 and batch before this Court and the said writ petitions were disposed of on 30.8.2011 by the Division Bench of this Court stating as follows:
“These Writ Petitions are devoid of any merit and are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.”
4. Against the above said orders in the Writ Petitions, the petitioner in the Writ Petitions i.e. the Government preferred S.L.P’s. before the Hon’ble Apex Court vide Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).29963- 29965 of 2011 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the same vide order as follows: “In view of the order passed by this Court in SLP (Civil) No.6422/2007 on 23/11/2009, the special leave petitions are dismissed.”
5. As the issue was already decided by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the Division Bench of this Court had also considered the same, the petitioners herein who are also standing on the same footing, is entitled for the same benefit.
6. Accordingly, with the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the writ petition, shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH RD 06.02.2026.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.10657 OF 2025 06.02.2026 RD