APHC010099552025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 5214/2025 Between: 1. MANNE SUJAN BABU, S/O SIMHACHALAM, AGE 44 YEARS, TANDYAM VILLAGE, PONDURU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. PRESENTLY WORKING AS NON-TECHNICAL MATE, RANGE -1, SRIKAKULAM AT AP FOREST RANGE OFFICE OF SOCIAL FORESTY, SRIKAKULAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY FOREST, ENVIRONMENT AND SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ARANYA BHAVAN, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, VISAKHAPATNAM DIVISION, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, SOCIAL FOREST DIVISION, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM DIVISION, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare action of the Respondent in not fixing minimum time scale to petitioner duties as per principle of equal pay for equal work and on par with other regular employees and not considering the Petitioners Representations Dated 2.3.2022 and 4.4.2022 which is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and violative of Articles 300-A, 14,16 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith fix minimum time scale to Petitioners for his duties on par with other employees and consider the Petitioners Representations Dated 2.3.2.022 and 4.4.2022 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the Respondents to forthwith fix minimum time scale to Petitioners for his duties on par with other employees and consider the Petitioners Representations Dated 2.3.2022 and 4.4.2022, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave for filing of the Counter Affidavit in W.P.No.5214 of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking extension of time scale for the service of the petitioner on par with other employees whose representations were considered by the respondents. In that regard, the petitioner also submitted representations dated 02.03.2022 and 04.04.2022 which are pending consideration with the respondents. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner is working as non-technical mate Range-1, Srikakulam at Andhra Pradesh Forest Range Office. It is submitted that the petitioner joined service on payment of a consolidated amount of Rs.1,890/- in the year 2001 and as of now the petitioner is receiving an amount of Rs.6,147/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.117 dated 27.02.2006 extending minimum time scale to the workers who are working as daily wage/NMR/consolidated pay basis in the Forest Department. The cut-off date for people who are working in the Forest Department prior to 25.11.1993 was prescribed. It is submitted that on the same principle, several employees were extended the time scale. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the matter of State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the payment of equal pay for equal work and recognized as a fundamental right. It is also submitted that another employee and a colleague of the petitioner by name G.Srinivass 1 (2017) 1 SCC 148 4 Rao filed W.P.No.25862 of 2021 seeking extension of minimum time scale and a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 06.03.2023 allowed the writ petition and the W.A.No.476 of 2024 filed by the respondents was dismissed. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, submits that the petitioner is not working as an NMR and that the petitioner is engaged as and when there is requirement of getting some work executed and that the vouchers submitted by the petitioner are not genuine. It is further submitted that the labour charges are paid by the M.P.D.O concerned through A.P.O directly. It is also submitted that the Forest Range Officer has denied issuance of the said vouchers. It is also alleged that the petitioner has resorted to fabrication of the vouchers which are filed along with the writ petition. It is submitted that the engagement of the petitioner for getting works executed under Centrally Sponsored Schemes and other projects are not eligible to seek minimum time scale. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in reply submits that the Forest Officers in order to deny the petitioner the minimum time scale have issued the letters which suit the stand of the respondents. It is further submitted that the voucher annexed to the counter does not relate to the service of the petitioner, it relates to payment for the materials supplied by the petitioner. 5 6. Considering the submissions and also following the judgment passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25862 of 2021, the services of the petitioner are admittedly on par with the services of the petitioner therein and the minimum time scale would have to be extended to the petitioner. The petitioner would have to be extended beyond time scale for the work rendered by him. 7. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date.06.05.2026 SR