WP/19419/2023 of VEGESNA SARADA Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 5 February 2026

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing proceedings dated 23.04.2021 wherein rejected the request of the petitioners to reckon the period rendered from 08.07.1981 to 05.03.1992 and from 01.12.1985 to 05.03.1992 in categories of Hindi Pandit Grade-I and Junior Assistant respectively in the 4th respondent School for the purpose of Career Advancement Scheme and Automatic Advancement Scheme, as illegal and arbitrary.

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

3. The 4th respondent-School has submitted proposals to the competent authority for sanction of automatic advancement scales in respect of the petitioners on 08.11.2019. When the said proposals were not considered by the authorities, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing W.P.No.10222 of 2019 and the said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the proposals and pass appropriate orders. Considering

DR, J W.P.No.19419 of 2023 the said orders, the present impugned proceedings have been issued, wherein the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioners based on the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.3460 of 2010 and 19171 of 2015.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said orders were contrary to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Y.Sidda Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh1 and the same were passed declaring the Ordinance as illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, more particularly Section 4(1) of the Ordinance is irrational and arbitrary. Following the said judgment, subsequent Act was assailed in a batch of writ petitions. The said Act was considered in W.P.No.3460 of 2010 and batch and the said batch of writ petitions were also disposed of in same lines. But surprisingly, the respondents while deciding the issue has not considered the observations made by the Division Bench in Y.Sidda Reddy’s case (supra 1). In the said judgment, the Division Bench has categorically observed with regard to career 1 2006 (3) ALD 546

DR, J W.P.No.19419 of 2023 advancement scheme and the automatic advancement scheme. The relevant portion reads as follows: “…..When the primary liability to make the payment in accordance with the terms of the above mentioned schemes is on the managements, it is the look out of the management to maintain a proper record of the length of the service of the employees. By making a declaration such as the one made under Section 3 insofar as the career advancement scheme and the automatic advancement scheme are concerned, the Legislature in our view only made an arbitrary declaration that the unaided service shall not be counted for the purpose of conferring the benefits of the above mentioned schemes without there being any rational State purpose. On the other hand such a declaration only enables the employer to defer the benefit of those schemes to the employees though the employee rendered long service which but for the arbitrary legislative declaration entitles the employee for the benefits of the above mentioned two schemes. The professed purpose of the above mentioned two schemes is to give some monetary benefit to the employees who have no opportunity of any promotions in the service and consequent stagnation in their income. The two schemes are still in force and the State thinks it fit to continue the same, but by the terms of the Ordinance the employees are irrationally deprived of the benefits of the schemes. (We therefore hold that Section 3 to the above mentioned extent is unconstitutional).”

DR, J W.P.No.19419 of 2023

5. In the above referred judgment, the Court clearly pointed out that the automatic advancement scheme is only to provide certain financial benefits to the persons based on the stagnation for a long period and there is no rational for the State to deny such benefits to the persons whether they are aided or unaided.

6. Further, the learned counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that in fact based on the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Y.Sidda Reddy’s case (supra 1), the respondents have implemented and extended the benefits to the identical teachers and the said orders were placed along with the memo. On perusal of the said orders, it shows that though they were all pertain to State of Telangana, the benefits, which were granted, were based on the judgment passed by the Division Bench, more particularly with regard to Andhra Pradesh Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees (Regulation of Pay) Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act 37 of 2005’). When that being the situation, the respondents ought not to have rejected the case of the petitioners to reckon the period rendered from 08.07.1981 to 05.03.1992 and 01.12.1985 to 05.03.1992 for the purpose of career advancement scheme and automatic advancement scheme.

DR, J W.P.No.19419 of 2023

7. Reply to the said contentions, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents placed reliance on Sections 3 and 4 of the Act 37 of 2005. Section 3 of the Act 37 of 2005 is pertaining to Counting of Service for fixation of pay, Automatic Advancement Scheme, Career Advancement Scheme and Pension. Section 4 of the Act 37 of 2005 deals with abatement of claims and Section 4(1) of the Act 37 of 2005 deals with the orders issued by the Government directing to take into account the increments earned by an employee of a Private Aided Educational Institution prior to the date of admission of the post to grant-in-aid for the purpose of fixation of pay. While considering these two provisions, the Division Bench declared only Section 4(1) of the Act 37 of 2005 as unconstitutional and irrational and upheld Section 3 of the Act 37 of 2005. In support of his contention, he has relied on the orders passed by the Division Bench in W.P.No.3460 of 2010 and batch, wherein the Division Bench, while upholding the vires of Section 3 of the Act 37 of 2005, declared Section 4(1) of the Act 37 of 2005 as unconstitutional. Since the Division Bench declared only Section 4(1) of the Act 37 of 2005 as unconstitutional, the authorities

DR, J W.P.No.19419 of 2023 rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners as per Section 3 of the Act 37 of 2005.

8. In reply to the said contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners made her submissions based on the observations of the Division Bench. In fact, though the Division Bench did not strike down Section 3 of the Act 37 of 2005, it observed that Section 3 of the Act 37 of 2005 is irrational and illogical. Once certain monetary benefits are provided, the State, considering the stagnation of service, should not discriminate, particularly in counting service, whether it is aided or unaided. Further, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uday Pratap Thakur v. State of Bihar2, wherein it was observed that service should be counted for pensionary benefits, whether permanent or work charged and hence, it directed that work charged service be counted for the purpose of pension.

9. Considering the above submissions and on perusal of the observations made by the Division Bench, the impugned proceedings dated 23.04.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent are set aside and the matter is remanded to the concerned authorities 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 527

DR, J W.P.No.19419 of 2023 to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench in Y.Sidda Reddy’s case (supra 1) and pass appropriate orders within a period of two

(2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date: 06.02.2026 Ivd

DR, J W.P.No.19419 of 2023 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

WRIT PETITION No.19419 of 2023

Dated: 06.02.2026

Ivd