Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.
K Vijayalakshmi, W/o Muneswararao - Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its PrI. secretary Women Principal Secretary, Development – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 3784 OF 2023
Decided on : 05-06-2025
Key Points: - Contract employees appointed as Anganwadi Workers and later Contract Supervisors are entitled to continue in service till age 62 under the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, as amended (!) (!) (!) . - Petitioners fall under the definition of "Government employee" per Section 1(2) of Act 23 of 1984, covering persons appointed to public services in connection with State affairs (!) (!) (!) . - Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (Rule 4 and Rule 9) apply to contract appointments, as Government failed to adhere to contract terms or frame special rules (!) (!) . - Salaries paid from Consolidated Fund of the State (75%) qualify petitioners under Section 1(2)(ii) (!) (!) . - Court relied on Supreme Court precedents like State of Gujarat vs. R.L. Keshav Lal for master-servant relationship test confirming civil post status (!) (!) . - Amendment Act 1 of 2022 enhances superannuation age from 60 to 62 years for covered employees, justified by increased life expectancy (!) (!) (!) . - No discrimination allowed; contract employees performing similar statutory duties as regular employees entitled to equal superannuation benefits (!) (!) . - Government's non-adherence to contract terms and long continuous service (decades) make service rules applicable (!) (!) (!) . - Writ petition allowed; petitioners to continue as Contract Supervisors till age 62 with consequential benefits (!) .
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.
1. Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners appearing online assisted by Sri S. Prahaas, learned Counsel and Sri K. Amrith Raj, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-ll.
2.1. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under:
“It is humbly prayed to declare that the contract “Government Employee” and are governed under Act 23 of 1984 as amended from time to time and thereby the petitioners are entitled to continue in service till attaining the age of 62 years on par with regular Government Employees, which is in tune with the language, spirit and object of Act 23 of 1984 and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners till they attain, [employees/petitioners would fall under the definition of] age of 62 years on par with regular employees under Act 23 of 1984 with all consequential benefits and attendant benefits or in alternate to direct the respondents to continue the petitioners upto the age of 60 years on par with Others/Part Time Junior Lecturers working in Government Junior Colleges, who are similarly placed like the petitioners by holding the action of the respondents in not doing so and contemplating to retire the petitioners from service by not extending the further contract, solely on the ground that the petitioners attained 58 years of age as meted out to the colleagues of the petitioners as bad, irrational, illegal, unfair, arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to the spirit and object of Act 28 of 1984 as amended from time to time, unconstitutional by issuance of Writ of Mandamus or issue any Writ, Order or Direction and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2.2. When this case was listed for admission, the learned Single Judge of this Court (my Predecessor), vide Order dated 12.05.2023, had directed the Respondents to continue the services of the Writ Petitioners without reference to the age of 58 years. This Order is in operation till date.
Submissions of Writ Petitioners:
3. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners submits that the Writ Petitioners were initially appointed as Anganwadi Workers on contract basis in the years 1986, 1989, 1980, 1990, 1989 and 1990 respectively; that they have been appointed on contract basis in the higher post i.e., Contract Supervisors in the years 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2007 respectively and they are now continuing in the same position as such; that the said Writ Petitioners have rendered their services as Anganwadi Workers and are now rendering services as Contract Supervisors to the satisfaction of one and all and they have continued in service without any break; that despite rendering satisfactory service, since the Writ Petitioners were not being regularized, the Writ Petitioners filed W.P.No.38777 of 2022 seeking regularization of their services and that the said Writ Petition is still pending on the file of this Court; that now, all the Writ Petitioners have put in almost 30 years of service as Anganwadi workers and as Contract Supervisors on contract basis with a fond hope that their services would be regularized and be paid regular salaries; and that till now, the Writ Petitioners have been sustaining on meager salaries.
3.1. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that some of the persons, working in similar posts, on contract basis, were retired from the service at the age of 58 years while the regular employees in the same Department and performing similar functions were being continued beyond the age of 58 years; that some of them were made to retire at 60 years and now they (the regular employees) are made to retire at 62 years by virtue of the amendment made to the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2022 dated 14.02.2022; that the said Amendment Act, 2022 has enhanced the age of superannuation from 60 years to
AI
Contract employees performing statutory duties are entitled to the same superannuation benefits as regular employees under applicable state laws.
Employees of a residential institution governed by statutory regulations are entitled to the same superannuation benefits as government employees unless explicitly stated otherwise.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.15, dtd. 31/1/2022, which enhanced the age of superannuation of Government Employees from 60 years to 62 years, t....
Long-serving employees in essential roles cannot be denied regularization and benefits due to initial irregularities in appointment, as per Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Lengthy service by an employee on ad-hoc basis, when performed against a sanctioned post, must be counted towards seniority and benefits, ensuring equitable treatment in state employment.
Employees of subordinate bodies like TUDA are not entitled to enhanced superannuation age benefits of State employees, as they are not funded by the State's Consolidated Fund.
whenever a new benefit is granted and/or new scheme is introduced, it might be possible for the State to provide a cut-off date taking into consideration its financial resources. But the same shall n....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Model Service Regulations and the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.15, dtd. 31/1/2022, to the Writ Petitioner's case, based ....
The State must uphold fair employment practices, ensuring that longstanding contractual employees receive regularization if their roles are recurring and essential to the organization.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
