M.Balaji Naik v. The Commissioner of Endowments Department
WP/6973/2018 · 2025-06-23
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 13240 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 13240 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
APHC010158342018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 6973/2018 Between: M.balaji Naik ...PETITIONER AND The Commissioner Of Endowments Department and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KRISHNA RAO MODHALAVALASA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer:
“…..to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the in action of the respondents in not absorbing the petitioners, however they are discharging since from 12 years against the vacancies caused due to retirements, promotions, death etc and also not paying the minimum regular time scale in the Last Grade Services under the principles of Equal Pay, Equal work in terms of Apex Court Judgment in reported 2017 (1)SCC Page 148 in State of Punjab and others Versus Jagjit Singh and others is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the
2
Constitution of India and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled to be absorbed against the vacancies caused due to retirements, promotions, death etc, pending disposal of the same, and pass such other order or orders……”
2. Heard Sri Krishna Rao Modhalavalasa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.Venu Gopal, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments, appearing for the 3rd respondent.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the light of the interim order passed by this Court, the respondent authorities have implemented the interim order and minimum time scale has been granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that recording the same, the writ petition may be disposed of.
4. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Date: 24.06.2025 ARR
3
43 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
WRIT PETITION NO: 6973/2018
Dt.24.06.2025
ARR