r"' IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUAI TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 20772 OF 201? Between: S.D.D.Varma, S/o. S.V.R.Raju, aged 45 years, working as Technical Work Inspector (NMR) A. P. Education Welfare Infrastructure Development Corp., Guntur, Guntur District & R/o. H.No.26-39-120/5, 2"" Line, Sriram Nagar, AT. Agraharam, Guntur ...PETITIONER AND 1. A.P. Education Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, Its Managing Director, Near L.B.Stadium, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The Executive Engineer, A.P.E. W. Infrastructure rep. by Development Corporation, Welfare Office Complex, Guntur, Guntur District. 3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Government, Education (SE-TRG) Department, Secretariat, to Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction may more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of payment of minimum time scale attached to the post of Technical Work Inspector as was extended to the similarly placed persons in other departments as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequentially to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of payment of Minimum Time Scale attached to the post held by the petitioner in the respondent corporation on par with the similarly placed persons in other Departments. f LA. NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 26628 OF 2012) 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 issue an interim direction directing the respondent No.1 to consider the representation, dated 7-01-2012 submitted by the petitioner in the light of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Rt.No.1523, PR & RD Department, dated 26-10-2009 pending the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI G. V. S. KISHORE KUMAR, SCFORAPEWIDC Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010273332012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 20772/2012 Between: ...PETITIONER S.d.d.varma AND ...RESPONDENT{S) A P Education Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.. 2.G VS KISHORE KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner was engaged as a technical work inspector in the respondent corporation on daily wages on 01.11.1992. Thereafter, he claim for regularization of his services and filed a writ petition before this Court and also for extension of payment on minimum time scale. The case of the petitioner was not considered for regularization as he did not satisfy the conditions of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. However, the petitioner was allowed to minimum time scale attached to the post. The respondents unilaterally reinstated the petitioner services and started paying the petitioner on daily wages. Subsequently, this was also challenged by the petitioner by filing writ petition in W.P.No.21109 of 2000. The said writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner on 01.11.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P.No.16498 of 2000 which was disposed on 03.10.2001 directing the respondents to consider the services of the petitioner to be regularized and also for absorption in other department in the cadre of last grade services provided there for vacancies. The Managing Director of the respondent-corporation issued speaking orders stating that the petitioner not entitled for regularization but was entitled only for daily Challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents in not extending minimum time scale attached to the post of technical work inspector, the was wages. present writ petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working directly under the respondent-corporation and not under any contractor and the petitioner is still continuing in service and is left with another few years of service. The petitioner as on date is paid on daily wage basis. It is submitted that the work of the technical work inspector is perennial in nature and the petitioner has been in service right from 01.11.1992 till date without any break. It is submitted that the petitioner has served for more than 33 years as a work inspector on payment of daily wages and the respondents have extended minimum time scale to several similarly engaged NMR work inspectors. 7^- The respondents in their counter submitted that the case of the petitioner was not considered for regularization as he did not comply with the requirements of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. It is also submitted in the counter that the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation had passed a speaking order clarifying that the petitioner is not entitled for regularization and he was engaged on daily wage basis. It is also submitted that new staffing pattern and new service rules of Andhra Pradesh Education Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation have been accorded sanction, as vacant posts for regularization of the petitioner. It is submitted that the post of work inspector is not included in the staffing pattern therefore, the services of the petitioner are continued in the Corporation on daily wages and not entitled for regular pay scale. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the counter filed 3. such, there were no by the respondents and the incumbents thereby. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been in continuous service for 5. the last 33 years and has been working on daily wage basis since 01.11.1992. It is also not in dispute that the services of the petitioner are engaged on leave basis as the petitioner has been in continuous service. This itself indicates that the work of the petitioner is perennial in nature. The continuation of the daily wages for the post of work inspector does not petitioner’s services on figure in the staffing pattern cannot be appreciated. 6. The respondents have been extracting work from the petitioner as a work inspector however denied the minimum time scale on date as is paid to a regular work inspector though there absolutely no differentiatio n of work executed by the petitioner and a regular work inspector. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondents to extend the minimum time scale to the petitioner and pass necessary proceedings within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, sh^ll stand closed. Sd/- M SRiNIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Managing Director, A.P. Education Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, Vijayawada. 2. The Executive Engineer, A.P.E.W. Infrastructure Development Corporation, Welfare Office Complex, Guntur, Guntur District. 3. The Principal Secretary to Government, Education (SE-TRG) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati, Guntur District. 4. One CC to Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri G. V. S. Kishore Kumar, SC for APEWIDC [OPUC] 6. Two CC’s to GP for Education, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] 7. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:25/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.20772 of 2012 Current Section yPSS PAT iK^ PARTLY ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS