1 APHC010380872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 19600/2025 Between: R Lakshmi and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. A V S LAXMI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 19600/2025 The present Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioners claiming parity in respect of the age of superannuation on par with the Government Employees by extending their services till they attain the age of 60 years. 2. The Petitioners have been working as Contract Supervisors in the Department of Women Development and Child Welfare for the last 23 years. The counsel for the Petitioners, while placing reliance on a Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.3784 of 2023, dated 05.06.2025, submits that the services of similarly situated persons like the Petitioners were extended up to 62 years and sought a similar relief for the Petitioners also. 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader Sri S. Raju, contended that the Petitioners being contract employees cannot seek for extension of their services till the age of 62 years at par with Government Employees. 4. Heard the respective counsel. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.204 of 2024, dt. 5.03.2024 held that the contract employees are not entitled for 3 continuance of service beyond 58 years. The relevant portion of the Order reads as under: “2. On perusal of the order appealed against in this intra-Court Appeal, it is seen that the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on an earlier order passed by this Bench on 10.01.2024 rejecting the writ petition bearing W.P.No.21294 of 2023. The Division Bench while rejecting the said Writ Petition has been pleased to observe in paras.2 to 8 as under: “2) The Petitioner claims to have been appointed on a contractual basis on 30.12.2004 as a “Forest Beat Officer” and that he has been rendering services to the Forest Department without a break since then and as on 31.08.2023 he has completed 60 years of age and the Respondents have not granted to him the advantage under G.O.Ms. No. 15, dated 31.01.2022, and clarified by Circular Memo, dated 23.09.2022. Paragraph No.8 of the Circular Memo, dated 23.09.2022, reads as under: “8. In view of the above, the Government hereby clarifies that the orders were issued vide the G.O.Ms. No. 15, Finance (HR IV- FR&LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022 read with the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2022 (Act 4 of 2022) are applicable in respect of no other category of employee except the following: i) persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State; ii) officers and other employees working in any local authority, whose salaries and allowances are paid out of the consolidated fund of the State; iii) persons appointed to the Secretariat Staff of the Houses of the State Legislature and iv) every other officer or employee whose conditions of service are regulated by the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of 4 the Constitution of India before the commencement of this Act, other than the Village Officers and Law Officers; Whether appointed before or after the commencement of this Act.” 3) On a bare reading of the above, it is apparent that the Circular refers to ‘persons who have been appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State”. In the case of the Petitioner, it is not in dispute that the Petitioner has not been appointed in terms of the relevant Rules, but his services have been engaged on contractual basis. 4) It is the claim of the Petitioner that he is still hale and healthy and discharging duties in the post of “Forest Beat Officer”. If that is so, it is open to the Petitioner to make a request to continue his services on similar terms as those subsisting prior to the date of his contractual employment, which came to be terminated. 5) The persons like the Petitioner, who have been engaged on contractual basis, in the considered opinion of this Court do not constitute “a person who is appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State”. The use of the word “appointed” is not without significance. It implies an appointment made in accordance and in compliance with the laws/rules. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition, in our considered opinion is misconceived. 6) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would attempt to place reliance on certain interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge. On a perusal of the same, it is seen that no opinion upholding the right of the Petitioner therein, has been articulated by the learned Single Judge. In that view of the matter, we do not find any ground to place reliance on the same or treat the Petitioner on parity with the Petitioners therein. 7) Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. 5 8) The dismissal of the Writ Petition will not come in the way of the Respondents if they so desire to re-engage the services of the Petitioner on terms as noted supra.” 3. From a reading of the above, it is seen that the case of the Appellant herein is similar to the case of the Petitioner therein, which was canvassed and rejected by this Bench. 6. Subsequently, the learned Single Judge of this Court while placing reliance on a Judgment of the Division Bench cited above, had dismissed the case of a contract employee in W.P.No.2152 of 2024. The reliance placed on Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, is wholly misplaced as the same is applicable to persons holding “Sanctioned Posts”. Further, the Rule 9 (b) explicitly states that persons appointed on contract basis shall not be regarded as members of the service. It is to be noted that purport of Rule 9 is only to enable the Government to employ persons dehors the regular procedure to meet any contingencies and such persons are not at par with a regular Government Employee to seek for enhanced age of retirement. 7. In that view, following the Order in W.A.No.204 of 2024 and for the reasons recorded therein, the present Writ Petition is also dismissed. No order as to costs. 6 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date: 31.07.2025 eha 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.19600/2025 Dated 31.07.2025 eha