1 APHC010466862018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 21894/2018 Between: M. Sree Ramulu ...PETITIONER AND Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam Dwaraka Tirumala and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Manchanapalli Ravi Sankar Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) 2. PULIPATI RADHIKA The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “…..to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not extending the scales of pay of the junior assistant to the petitioner and not regularising his service as computer operator as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of The Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to grant the scales of pay of the 2 junior assistant to the petitioner and regularise his service as computer operator and pass such other order or orders…...” 2. Heard Sri Manchanapalli Ravi Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Pulipati Radhika, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing for the 2nd respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the writ petition has been filed seeking regularization of service of the petitioner as well as payment of minimum time scale. 4. In the light of the interim order passed by this Court, the respondent authorities have complied the interim order and the petitioner is getting minimum time scale. Coming to the aspect of regularization, the similarly situated persons services have been regularized by virtue of orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.28271 of 2009, dated 10.12.2013. 5. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that in the said case referred supra, the writ petition is filed in the year 2009 and direction has been given in the year 2013. Let there be a direction to the petitioner to submit his representation to the respondent authorities, so that the respondents can consider and pass appropriate orders. 6. In view of the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to submit his representation to the respondents 1 and 2 3 within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and then, the respondents are directed to take appropriate decision over the matter according to governing rules and law within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of the representation. 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: 21.04.2025 ARR 4 148 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 21894/2018 Dt.21.04.2025 ARR