SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 19716

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NYAPATHY VIJAY
P V R SRINIVASA RAJU – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WP 33365/2025



APHC010622442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3460]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 33365/2025 Between:

P V R Srinivasa Raju ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. PAMPANA PADMAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. CHINTAPALLI SRINIVAS

2. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.33365 of 2025

ORDER:

1. The Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondents in not extending the Pay Scale in terms of G.O.Rt.No.361 Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (E.I) Department, dated 10.05.2019 and G.O.Rt.No.116 Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (E.II) Department, dated 18.02.2020 as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The Petitioner is working as Work Inspector in the respondent temple. It is stated that the pay scales of the Work Inspectors in the Irrigation Department were revised vide G.O.Rt.Nos.361 and 116, dated 10.05.2019 and 18.02.2020. It is further stated that as the Petitioner is discharging similar duties and having similar qualifications, the Petitioner is entitled to the pay fixed as per the above Government Orders.

3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondent Authorities to consider the representation of the Petitioner, dated 11.09.2025.

4. Sri G. Nagabhusanam, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submits that the Government Orders relied upon by the Petitioner pertain to the Panchayat Raj Department, and the same are not applicable to the personnel working under the Endowment Department. The parity of pay is an executive decision, and the Petitioner cannot claim for equal pay as a matter of right.

5. Heard the respective counsel.

6. G.O.Rt.No.361 Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (E.I) Department, dated 10.05.2019, and G.O.Rt.No.116 Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (E.II) Department, dated 18.02.2020, were issued by the Panchayat Raj Department vis-à-vis the pay of Work Inspectors in the said Department. The issue of parity of pay scale is an executive decision, as rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, and in that view, the Writ Petition is disposed of with following directions:

i) The Respondent Authorities are directed to examine the representation of the Petitioner dated 11.09.2025 in terms of G.O.Rt.No.361 Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (E.I) Department, dated 10.05.2019, and G.O.Rt.No.116 Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (E.II) Department, dated 18.02.2020 and pass appropriate orders.

ii) There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 11.12.2025 eha THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No. 33365/2025 Dt. 11.12.2025 eha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top