WP/40336/2022 of BUDURU CHANDU Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 18 November 2025

1. BUDURU CHANDU, S/O. B.RAMANAIAH, AGED 38 YEARS.

R/O. APTWR SCHOOL (PTG-BOYS), CHITTEDU, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT

2. YELURU SOWDAMMA, S/O. Y.CHENCHAIAH, AGED 47 YEARS.

3. INDLA RAMU,, S/O. I.SUBBIAH, AGED 42 YEARS.

4. CHELAMCHERLA NARASIMHA RAO,, S/O. CH.SUBBIAH, AGED 44 YEARS.

5. DUGGINETI MALLAIAH,, S/O. D.LAKSHMAIAH, AGED 53 YEARS.

6. YATAGIRI VENKATESWARLU,, S/O. Y.RAMANAIAH, AGED 47 YEARS.

7. BANDI AMARAVATHI,, S/O. B.CHINNAIAH, AGED 46 YEARS.

8. NALLU GOLAPA KRISHNAIAH, S/O. N.ANKAIAH, AGED 38 YEARS.

9. PATRA RAJYA LAKSHMI, S/O. P.BALAIAH, AGED 40 YEARS.

10. YATAGIRI RATNAMMA, S/O. Y.RAMANAIAH, AGED 48 YEARS. (ALL ARE FOR THE SERVICES, NOTICES ETC. BUDURU CHANDU, S/O. B.RAMANAIAH, AGED 38

KM, J WP No. 40336 of 2022

YEARS, R/O. APTWR SCHOOL (PTG-BOYS), CHITTEDU, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT)

...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE A P TRIBAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SOCIETYGURUKULAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

3. THE PROJECT OFFICER I T D A, NELLORE DISTRICT.

4. THE PRINCIPAL, A.P. TRIBAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, BOYS, SOMASILA, NELLORE DISTRICT.

5. THE PRINCIPAL, A.P. TRIBAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, KOTA, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.

6. THE PRINCIPAL, A.P. TRIBAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, CHITTEDU, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.

7. THE PRINCIPAL, A.P. TRIBAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL JUNIOR COLLEGE, CHITTEDU, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. G V SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. ANITHA MESA (SC FOR APREIS TW SW BC)

2. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

3. GP FOR SERVICES II

KM, J

The Court made the following Order:

The present writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in not regularizing the service of the petitioners and not paying wages as per Minimum Time Scale of pay, while other similarly situated candidates were regularized and Minimum Time scale.

2. Heard Sri Dubba Viswakanth Babu, learned counsel appearing for Sri. G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlda, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have been working with the 3rd respondent-society on a contract basis since 2003. Though there are regular sanctioned vacancies existing, their claim was not considered by the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondents are not paying the petitioners as per the Minimum Time Scale. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision of

KM, J WP No. 40336 of 2022

the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Panjab V. Jagjit Singh and Others1, prays for a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization of service and granting of the minimum Time Scale.

4. The respondents filed the counter denying the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners were not appointed against sanctioned posts; as such the petitioners are not entitled for the regularization process or grant of Minimum Time Scale.

5. The learned standing counsel for the 2nd Respondent relied upon the G.O.Ms.No.12. Wherein it is provided that, <the extension of minimum of time scale is applicable to those contract employees who have been appointed against vacant sanctioned post and for those who have been pointed by the specific government orders issued with the concurrence of Government in Finance department.=

6. During the course of arguments, a copy of the judgment passed in W.P.No.38964 of 2022 has been placed before the court and it is contended that, since the petitioners are not appointed to the vacant sanctioned post, they are not entitled to 1 2017 (1) SCC 148

KM, J WP No. 40336 of 2022

the regularization of service or to grant of minimum time scale. Relying on the said judgment of this court in W.P.No.38964 of 2022, the petitioners should approach the authorities and make a representation for consideration of their case for regularization of service or for the grant of Minimum Time Scale.

7. Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioners to file application before the 2nd and 3rd respondents seeking grant of Regularization / Minimum Time Scale. Upon filling such representation, the respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within the period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Consequent thereto, Interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________

JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 19-11-2025. JAK

KM, J

Date : 19.11.2025. JAK