APHC010380872025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3460]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

WRIT PETITION NO: 19600/2025

Between:

R Lakshmi and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND

The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. A V S LAXMI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES II

The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 19600/2025 The present Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioners claiming parity in respect of the age of superannuation on par with the Government Employees by extending their services till they attain the age of 60 years.

2. The Petitioners have been working as Contract Supervisors in the Department of Women Development and Child Welfare for the last 23 years. The counsel for the Petitioners, while placing reliance on a Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.3784 of 2023, dated 05.06.2025, submits that the services of similarly situated persons like the Petitioners were extended up to 62 years and sought a similar relief for the Petitioners also.

3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader Sri S. Raju, contended that the Petitioners being contract employees cannot seek for extension of their services till the age of 62 years at par with Government Employees.

4. Heard the respective counsel.

5. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.204 of 2024, dt. 5.03.2024 held that the contract employees are not entitled for continuance of service beyond 58 years. The relevant portion of the Order reads as under:

“2. On perusal of the order appealed against in this intra-Court Appeal, it is seen that the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on an earlier order passed by this Bench on 10.01.2024 rejecting the writ petition bearing W.P.No.21294 of 2023. The Division Bench while rejecting the said Writ Petition has been pleased to observe in paras.2 to 8 as under:

“2) The Petitioner claims to have been appointed on a contractual basis on 30.12.2004 as a “Forest Beat Officer” and that he has been rendering services to the Forest Department without a break since then and as on 31.08.2023 he has completed 60 years of age and the Respondents have not granted to him the advantage under G.O.Ms. No. 15, dated 31.01.2022, and clarified by Circular Memo, dated 23.09.2022. Paragraph No.8 of the Circular Memo, dated 23.09.2022, reads as under:

“8. In view of the above, the Government hereby clarifies that the orders were issued vide the G.O.Ms. No. 15, Finance (HR IV- FR&LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022 read with the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2022 (Act 4 of 2022) are applicable in respect of no other category of employee except the following:

i) persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State;

ii) officers and other employees working in any local authority, whose salaries and allowances are paid out of the consolidated fund of the State;

iii) persons appointed to the Secretariat Staff of the Houses of the State Legislature and iv) every other officer or employee whose conditions of service are regulated by the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India before the commencement of this Act, other than the Village Officers and Law Officers;

Whether appointed before or after the commencement of this Act.” 3) On a bare reading of the above, it is apparent that the Circular refers to ‘persons who have been appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State”. In the case of the Petitioner, it is not in dispute that the Petitioner has not been appointed in terms of the relevant Rules, but his services have been engaged on contractual basis.

4) It is the claim of the Petitioner that he is still hale and healthy and discharging duties in the post of “Forest Beat Officer”. If that is so, it is open t