APHC010509632012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No: 25880 OF 2012 Between: K.Seetharam Singh @ K.S.R. Singh …Petitioner AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Housing Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Mohan Rami Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Sk.Sajid Ld. Standing Counsel for APSHC The Court made the following order: 1. The petitioner is challenging the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent in considering the recommendation of the 2nd respondent, whereby the 2nd respondent forwarded the recommendations to the 1st respondent seeking approval for absorbing the service of the petitioner vide proceedings dt.31.07.2008. -2- W.P. No.25880 of 2012 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent has accorded permission for absorbing the service of the Assistant Engineers, however, has not passed any proceedings approving the recommendations of the 2nd respondent for absorbing the petitioner into service and that the petitioner was paid on daily wage basis. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled for absorption and that there are vacant posts of Technical Work Inspectors and that the petitioner is working against the existing vacancy. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submits that the services of some of the Assistant Engineers were absorbed considering the requirement in Chittoor District. The petitioner is working in Prakasam District and as such, the 1st respondent has not sanctioned any approval. The learned standing counsel also submits that the 2nd respondent cannot recruit employees without approval of the 1st respondent. It is submitted that the demand for extension of minimum time scale by the full time/ N.M.R./daily wages/consolidated pay part time employees/ Masalchies, who were appointed before the cut-off date i.e., on 25.11.1993 was considered by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 30.09.2024. The petitioner was also extended the minimum time scale. A copy of the proceedings dated 30.09.2024 is placed on record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the minimum time scale ought to be extended from the date of joining and not from the day -3- W.P. No.25880 of 2012 as decided by the respondents without any rhyme or reason. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled for extension of minimum time scale from the date of joining or atleast the day from which the 2nd respondent sent the proposal to the 1st respondent for according permission, to absorb the service of the petitioner into service i.e. from 31.07.2008. 5. Insofar as the claim for extension of minimum time scale from 31.07.2008 is concerned, the petitioner would have to take steps in that regard. Insofar as the grievance in the present writ petition is concerned, the first respondent has so far not passed any orders in response to the proposal dt.31.07.2008 sent by the 2nd respondent. This Court cannot direct the 1st respondent to pass an order for creating posts or to accommodate the petitioner on regular basis. It is for the respondents to take steps for recruitment as and when required. 6. With these observations, the writ petition is closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings dated 30.9.2024. No costs. 7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH. N BV