APHC010269712024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331]

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

WRIT PETITION Nos.13366, 13367, 13398, 13399, 13478, 13479, 13580, 13583, 13585, 13586, 13588, 13615, 13646, 14550, 15225 and 15901 of 2024

W.P.No.13366 of 2024

Between:

Pidakala Benarji and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

W.P.No.13367 of 2024

Between:

Balivada Srinivasa Rao and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND

The Government Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

W.P.No.13398 of 2024

Between:

Smt Panthangi Sarala Devi and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND

Page 2 of 9

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others	RESPONDENT(S)
W.P.No.13399 of 2024
Between:
T Narendra and Others	PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others	RESPONDENT(S)
W.P.No.13478 of 2024
Between:
Baggam Lakshmana Rao and Others	PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others	RESPONDENT(S)
W.P.No.13479 of 2024
Between:
S.Nagabhushanam and Others	PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of A P and Others	RESPONDENT(S)
W.P.No.13580 of 2024
Between:
G.Rajappa and Others	PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of A P and Others	RESPONDENT(S)

W.P.No.13583 of 2024
Between:
Vellala Krishna Sarma and Others	PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of A P and Others	RESPONDENT(S)
W.P.No.13585 of 2024
Between:
G Jayachandra Chowdary	PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Ap and Others	RESPONDENT(S)
W.P.No.13586 of 2024
Between:
Ponnapalli Krishna Murthy	PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Ap and Others	RESPONDENT(S)
W.P.No.13588 of 2024
Between:
Valluri Rama Mohana Murali<br>and Others	PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others	RESPONDENT(S)
W.P.No.13615 of 2024
Between:
Malleswara Rao Padda and Others	PETITIONER(S)

AND

The State Of Ap and Others	RESPONDENT(S)
W.P.No.13646 of 2024
Between:
Maguluri Lakshma Reddy and Others	PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others	RESPONDENT(S)
W.P.No.14550 of 2024
Between:
Dora Srinivasa Rao and Others	PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of Ap and Others	RESPONDENT(S)
W.P.No.15225 of<br>2024
Between:
B Karrenna	PETITIONER
AND
The State Of A P and Others	RESPONDENT(S)
W.P.No.15901 of 2024
Between:
Pamulapati Radha	PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Ap and Others	RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.KRISHNA RAO M

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR SERVICES III

The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER

These writ petitions are filed by the petitioners to declare the action of the respondents in not allowing them to discharge duties as S.G.Ts (M.T.S) etc., despite the service till the end of academic year i.e., 30.06.2024 as per Government Memo No.1712743/Service-1/A2/2024 dated 30.05.2024 under the guise of condition No.5(A) of G.O.Ms.No.27 dated 31.01.2022 without extending the benefit of superannuation up to 62 years, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Sri M.Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appearing for Respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners were appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on contract basis on 12.04.2023 and 13.04.2023 in pursuance of the DSC conducted in 1998. He would submit that petitioners are entitled to continue in service at the age of superannuation of 62 years in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022, however, the respondents are not allowing the petitioners to continue in service till 62 years by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.27 dated 15.03.2023.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis for 11 months on 12.04.2023 and 13.04.2023. He would submit that the appointment letters were issued in terms of G.O.Ms.No.27 dated 15.03.2023. He also would submit that the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022, will not apply to the petitioners.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader placed reliance upon order passed by this Court in W.P.No.30195 of 2023 dated 22.11.2023.

6. The point for consideration is:-

Whether the petitioners appointed on 12.04.2023 and 13.04.2023 on contract basis, are entitled to benefit under G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 extending the age of superannuation up to 62 years?

7. It is an admitted fact that petitioners were appointed on contract basis for 11 months on 12.04.2023 and 13.04.2023. The appointments were made in pursuance of the willingness given by the candidates under Rule 9(A) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Rules, 1996 on a consolidated salary of Rs.32,670/- per month. The appointment letter further discloses that the appointment of the petitioners is purely on contract basis on the terms and conditions applicable to contract employees as per the existing rules, without any security, up to 60 years of age.

8. Government issued G.O.Ms.No.27 dated 15.03.2023 Clause 5(a) and 5(e) reads as follows:-

"(a) Their appointment is purely on contract basis on terms and conditions applicable to contract employees as per existing rules, without any scrutiny up to 60 years of age of the candidates.

(e) These orders are issued for accommodation of the DSC-1998 candidates only by giving as a special case in the exceptional circumstances on humanitarian grounds, and this shall not be taken as precedent. "

9. Learned single Judge in W.P.No.30195 of 2023 which was filed seeking extension of benefit of superannuation up to 62 years, considered the appointment of the petitioners therein who were appointed on 13.04.2023 in service as MPPS, Pallepalem, vide order dated 22.11.2023 dismissed the Writ Petition observing that the extension of age of superannuation has been devised for such persons who have been engaged in the services of the Government and other agencies and institutions for a longer period of time and since the appointment of the petitioners therein is in April, 2023, benefit under G.O.Ms.No.15 cannot be extended.

10. The case on hand, as discussed supra, the petitioners were appointed on 12.04.2023 and 13.04.2023 for 11 months. In appointment letter, it was specifically stated the appointment was purely on contract basis and the terms and conditions will attract to them without any security up to 60 years of age. The appointment letter was issued in terms of G.O.Ms.No.27 dated 15.03.2023. The terms and conditions of the appointment are clear.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are entitled for the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022. In fact, against the order in W.P.No.30195 of 2023 and

batch, W.A.No.698 and 705 of 2024 were filed and the same was dismissed by the Division Bench on 28.01.2024.

12. Given the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in these writ petitions and hence, they are liable to be dismissed.

13. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J

JLV

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

WRIT PETITION Nos.13366, 13367, 13398, 13399, 13478, 13479, 13580, 13583, 13585, 13586, 13588, 13615, 13646, 14550, 15225 and 15901 of 2024

Dated 28.08.2024

JLV

106