APHC010648322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3460]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 33712/2025 Between:

K. Sreenivasulu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SESHADRI GOALLA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2. GP FOR SERVICES II WRIT PETITION NO: 33716/2025 Between:

M Sampath Kumar ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SESHADRI GOALLA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

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

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.33712 & 33716 of 2025

COMMON ORDER:

1. In the present Writ Petitions, the Petitioners are questioning the action of the Respondents in not releasing the annual grade increments (MTS) and HRA from the date of payment of the minimum time scale extended as per G.O.Ms.No.352 Education (I.E.1) Dept., dated 01.10.1994, while extending the same to other similarly situated persons as illegal and arbitrary.

2. As the facts and issues involved in both the writ petitions are similar, these writ petitions are disposed of by way of common order.

3. The petitioners are retired lecturers. It is stated that the Petitioners were granted a minimum time scale pursuant to the order issued by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.352, dated 01.10.1994, and the Respondent No.3 vide Proceeding in Rc.No.C3/780/2001 and 1555/VC2-1/95, dated 16.07.2001 and

01.03.1997.

4. The grievance of the Petitioners is that annual increments and HRA were not being paid to the Petitioners from the date of payment of the minimum time scale as was given to similar persons.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I—Sri S. Raju on instructions submits that the issue urged by the Petitioners is squarely covered by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in State of A.P v J. Ravi and another (referred to supra), wherein it is held that the temporary employees are not entitled for annual grade increments and house rent allowance though entitled for minimum time scale and allowance.

6. Heard the respective counsel.

7. The issue with regard to the grant of annual grade increments and house rent allowance was considered by this Court in the case of J Ravi and another (referred to supra), and further referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ram Naresh Rawal v. Ashwini Ray and others, (2017) 3 SCC 436 held that the temporary employees are entitled to equal pay but without any increments and rejected the claim of the petitioners therein for increments in para No. 19 of the judgment. Paragraph Nos. 18 to 20 of the Judgment in J. Ravi and another (referred to first

supra) are extracted below:

“18. In Ram Naresh Rawat vs. Ashwani Roy and others, (2017) 3 SCC 436, the Hon‟ble Apex Court referring to Uma Devi‟s (supra) and Jagjit Singh‟s case (supra), reiterated that even if the principle of equal pay for equal work is applicable to temporary employees and the pay in the regular pay scale is admissible to such employees, they would be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale which is attached to the post but without any increments.

19. It is apt to refer paragraphs 15 to 17 of Ram Naresh‟s case (supra) as under:

“15. At this stage, reference is made to the aforesaid judgment in the case of Jagjit Singh‟s case (supra) for the purpose that even if principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is applicable and the pay in the regular pay scale is admissible to such employees, these employees would be entitled to minimum of the regular pay- scale and not the increments. This case is taken note of and discussed in Jagjit Singh‟s case (supra) in the following manner:

“36. Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1], decided by a five-Judge Constitution Bench: Needless to mention, that the main proposition canvassed in