WP/30582/2025 of G. MAHESH Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 1 February 2026

1. G. MAHESH, S/O. G. NARASAPPA, MAN MAZDOOR, AGED 56 YEARS, R/O. 9/62 UP, PINJARI STREET, KURNOOL.

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MA AND UD DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.

2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, PRIME HILL CREST, NEAR DGP OFFICE, VADDESWARAM, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR.

3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH, ANANTAPUR CIRCLE, ANANTAPUR.

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT, B- CAMP, KURNOOL.

5. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT, B-CAMP, KURNOOL.

...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 topleased to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not

DR,J W.P.No.30582 of 2025

granting minimum time scale to petitioner and also not taking a decision on regularization of petitioner as illegal and arbitrary, being contrary to the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner along with consequential benefits in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2024 INSC 1034, 2025 INSC 998, without any further delay in the interests of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. DHARANI KUMAR B Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I

DR,J W.P.No.30582 of 2025

The Court made the following ORDER:-

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not granting minimum time scale to petitioner and also not taking a decision on regularization of petitioner as illegal and arbitrary, being contrary to the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner along with consequential benefits in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2024 INSC 1034, 2025 INSC 998…”

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

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed in the 5th respondent office on 24.05.1989 as daily wages basis and his services were initially discontinued. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner has approached the labour court and as per the award of the Tribunal, the services of the petitioner was restored by G.O.Rt.No.2498 dated 17.12.2005 and accordingly, he was reinstated on 13.08.2007. Subsequently, the petitioner was paid monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-. The same is not on par with the regular employees. In fact, based on the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs Jagjith Singh 1, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.142, Finance dated 27.08.2018 and G.O.Ms.No.6, Finance dated 17.01.2022. Pursuant thereto, recommendation was made for implementation of Minimum 1 (2017) 1 SCC 148

DR,J W.P.No.30582 of 2025

Time Scale of pay, but the same was not extended to the petitioner and his services were also not regularized.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1989. Subsequently, based on the award of the tribunal, the petitioner’s services were reinstated in the year 2007. Since then, the petitioner has been continuing in the service. As the petitioner is working for more than 30 years, he is entitled for regularization of his services. In fact, the identical issue was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaggu vs Union of India2 and several similarly placed employees were considered and their services were regularized; however, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner for regularization. Hence, the writ petition

5. Counter has been filed by the respondents. Insofar as the continuation of the petitioner in service is concerned, the same has not been denied. However, it is stated in the counter that, as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, the petitioner is not eligible for regularization but as per the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaggu vs Union of India (Supra 2), the case of the petitioner has been considered and recommended the matter to the Government through the higher authorities. The same is pending for consideration.

6. Considering the averments made in the counter as well as the averments made in the writ petition, and in view of the fact that the 2 2024 INSC 1034

DR,J W.P.No.30582 of 2025

respondents have not denied the petitioner’s appointment in the year 1989 and his continuation in service after 2007, the respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above-referred judgment and passed appropriate orders.

7. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents, more particularly, 1st respondent to consider the proposal submitted by the authorities with regard to regularization of the petitioner as per the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaggu Vs Union of India (Supra 2) and pass appropriate orders within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date: 02.02.2026

Dvs

DR,J W.P.No.30582 of 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

WRIT PETITION No.30582 of 2025

Dated: 02.02.2026

Dvs