APHC010047532005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-

AT AMARAVATI [3506]

WRIT PETITION NO: 15422 of 2005 B.N. Chandramouli, ...Petitioner Vs.

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondents **********

Advocate for Petitioner: POODATTU AMARENDER Advocate for Respondent: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION CORAM : S RI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 12th March 2026 This Court made the following order:

This writ petition is filed seeking following relief:

“….to issue an order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 3rd Respondent in issuing impugned proceedings Rc.No.2342/A5/2004 dated 29.01.2005 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same with a further direction to the Respondents to count the unaided approved service of the petitioner from the date of his appointment for the purpose of increments and pension and also refix the pay of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment with all other consequential attendant benefits in accordance with Rules as was done in case of similarly situated persons and to pass….”

2. (a) Petitioner stated to have been selected in unaided post in the stream of Science as B.Ed Assistant by proceedings dated 26.06.1996. Later, he came to be absorbed into grant-in-aid with effect from 16.12.2003. By proceedings dated 12.04.2004, formal orders came to be issued indicating that petitioner has been absorbed with effect from aforesaid date and that he would work as apprentice for a period of two years and in terms of G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 16.08.2001, he would be paid stipend of Rs.15000/- for the first year and Rs.18,000/- for the second year. That triggered petitioner to make representation dated 22.07.2004, requesting 3^rd respondent to exclude him from the purview of G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 16.08.2001, inasmuch as the same has no application to him as he was already in service in unaided post and also made a request for continuing his unaided service from 01.07.1996 till the date of absorption i.e., 15.12.2003 for the purposes of future service benefits.

(b) As the aforesaid representation was not being attended, petitioner preferred W.P.No.18249 of 2004 before this Court and this Court, by order dated 07.10.2004, disposed of the writ petition directing 3^rd respondent to consider petitioner’s representation and pass appropriate orders. Eventually, 3^rd respondent passed impugned order dated 29.01.2005 rejecting petitioner’s representation. Assailing the same, present writ petition is filed.

3. Respondents 1 to 3 filed counter affidavit opposing writ petition.

4. Heard Sri P. Amarender, learned counsel for petitioner,appearing through virtual mode, and learned Government Pleader for Education, appearing for respondents.

5. (a) Learned counsel for petitioner contended that by virtue of the Andhra Pradesh Private Aided Educational Staff (Regulation of Pay) Act, 2000 (for brevity “Act 9 of 2000”) read with memo dated 07.08.2002, the claim of petitioner to treat unaided service for the purpose of extending service benefits such as re-fixation of pay, increments and pension, ought not to have been rejected. It is also contended that inasmuch as Government has extended aforesaid benefits to teaching staff of Junior and Degree Colleges in pursuance to G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 05.04.2004, refusing similar treatment clearly tantamount to arbitrariness and hit by Article 14 of Constitution of India.

(b) Further it is also contended that one of the B.Ed Assistant Teacher, who has been admitted to grant-in-aid, has been issued proceedings dated 16.12.2002 allowing re-fixation of pay scale and that petitioner is stated to be similarly situated;therefore, he is entitled to be extended the same benefit. To buttress his argumentsthat petitioner is entitled for counting of unaided service for the purpose of pensionary benefits, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex C