"A APHC010383522023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND"^ AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL NO: 848 OF 2023 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the orders in W.P.No. 2678 of 2021 dated 02.08. 2022 on the file of the High court. Between: The-Chittoor Municipal Corporation, Chittoor, Chittoor District Rep. by its Commissioner ...Appellant/4*'' Respondent AND 1. P/Khader Basha, S/o Pyare John, Municipal Corporation 2. p llangovan, S/o A.M. Pramakusham, PH worker, Chittoor Municipal Corporation 3. J Balaji, S/o CR Jagadeesh, Bill Collector, Chittoor Municipal /Corporation, 4. M K Saleem, S/o M.S.Khader Basha, Cleaner-cum- watchman, Chittoor Municipal Corporation 5. V Gangadharam, S/o Venkataswamy, Bill Collector, Chittoor Municipal Corporation Cleaner-cum-watchman, Chittoor A 6. V Kumar, S/o late G Venkataswamy, PH Worker, Chittoor Municipal Corporation K Karthkeyan, S/o K Kuppaswamy, Cleaner- Cum- Watchman, Chittoor Municipal Corporation 7. ...Writ Petitioners The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary MA and UD A.P. Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Amaravathi, Guntur District The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Gorantia, Guntur District 8. 9. Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, 10. ...Respondents lA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 suspend the impugned judgment in W.P.no.2678 of 2021 dt.02.08.2022 pending disposal of the writ appeal. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7: SRI P RAGHAVENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 8 and 10: GP FOR SERVICES IV Counsel for the Respondent No. 9: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following order: 4^^ APHC010383522023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND [3545] AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL NO: 848/2023 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to-set aside the judgement of the learned single judge in W.P.No. 2678 of 2021 dated 02.08 2022 as being irrational, misconceived and violative of FR 22 (b) of Fundamental Rules and tantamount to perpetuation of irregularity and pass Between: 1.THE CHITTOOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CHITTOOR DISTRICT REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER CHITTOOR, ...APPELLANT AND 1. P KHADER BASHA, S/0 PYARE JOHN. WATCHMAN, CHITTOOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CLEANER-CUM- 2. C ILANGOVAN, S/0 A.M. PRAMAKUSHAM, CHITTOOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PH WORKER, 3. J BALAJI, S/0 CR JAGADEESH, BILL COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR municipal corporation, 4. M K SALEEM, WATCHMAN, CHITTOOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 5. V GANGADHARAM, S/0 VENKATASWAMY, CHITTOOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION S/0 M.S.KHADER BASHA. CLEANER-CUM- bill collector. 2 6. V KUMAR, S/0 LATE G VENKATASWAMY CHITTOOR MUNICIPAL CORPqp/^jiqj^ PH WORKER, 7. K KARTHKEYAN, S/0 K KUPPASWAMY, CLEANER- CUM- WATCHMAN, CHiTTOOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 8. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. clmiaakuui, 9. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARY, FINANCE AND SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS GUNTUR DISTRICT REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENT, AMARAVATHI, PLANNING VELAGAPUDI, 10.THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION, GORANTLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT MUNICIPAL ...RESPONDENT(S): lA NO: 1 OF 202.? in JZ ,.T circumstances stated nleasef H ^ourt may be pleased pleased to condone the delay of 365 days in filing the appeal against judgment ,n W.P.No.2678 of 2021 dt.02.08.2022 and pass lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed in support of the praying that in the circumstances stated X.. • petition, the High Court may be pleased dt 02 08 impugned judgment in W.P.no.2678 of 2021 dt.02.08.2022 pending disposal of the Writ appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant: ' regbT M.Corporation in Rayalaseema Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES IV 2.GP FOR SERVICES I 3.P RAGHAVENDRA REDDY The Court made the following: 3 * THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL No.848 of 2023 JUDGMENT: {Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order, dated 02.08.2022 i:; W.P.No.2678 of 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The appellant herein is the 4*^ respondent; the respondent Nos.1 to 7 are petitioners and respondent Nos.8 to 10 are respondent Nos.1 to 3 in W.P.No.2678 of 2021. 3. All the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition for convenience. in 4. Brief facts leading to file this writ appeal are herein under: The petitioners were initially appointed during the year 1980, 1984, on daily wage basis in the 4'^ respondent Corporation. In fact, they approached the then Administrative Tribunal by filing RP Nos.20634 to 20646 of 1989 for regularization of their services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1320 MA, dated 15.12.1989. By order, dated 19.05.1989, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider for regularization of the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1320 MA, dated 15.12.1989. Then the 3'"* respondent issued Circular No.42344/87 M2, dated 03.03.1989 to pay the minimum time scale 1985 and 1988 onwards pending regularization. Thereafter, vide L.Ds.No.14160/99-M2, dated 05.07.1989 issued by the 3 rd respondent periodical increments were released and they are extended minimum time 4 scale in the year 1989 along with increments services. The services of the petitioners pending regularization of their were regularized by the 1®* respondent vide G.O,Rt.No.438, MA&UD Department, dated 30.06.2019 prospectively from the date of issue of orders, but the petitioners prior to regularization of their pay drawn by the services was not protected. Consequently, their pay has been re-fixed in the minimum time scale at the initial stage and thereby their salary has been considerably reduced to their detriment causing much financial hardship. On regularization pay could not be reduced and even if regularization the pay of the petitioners were of their services was prospectively made, receiving at the time of regularization should have been protected. Therefore, the inaction of the respondents in not protecting pay scales of the petitioners, which regularization of their were drawing prior to is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and as such they constrained to approach this Court for seeking redressal. services. 5. The respondents filed their counter-affidavit resisting the claim of the petitioners. 6. The learned Single Judge of this Court after having detailed consideration of the issue involved in the writ petition and upon careful examination of the material available record including the authoritative pronouncements on the issue involved in the writ petition, allowed the writ on petition by order, dated 02.08.2022, which is extracted hereunder: The respondents shall fix the pay of the petitioners applicable on regularization of their in the pay scale as sen/ices protecting the pay as was 5 being paid immediately preceding the date of their regularization. The necessary consequences shall follow. The respondents shall complete the aforesaid entire within a period of two months from the date of production of copy of this judgment before the respondents. ” exercise 7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, the 4*^ respondent in the writ petition preferred the present writ appeal. 8. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 7/writ petitioners. 9. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant would submit that the relaxation for absorption of temporary employees as per G.O.Ms.No.212 F&P, dated 22.04.1994 is available only when there are clear vacancies and service counts from date of such regularization, therefore, all benefits of regularization of services will be counted only from the date of issuance of order. Learned Standing Counsel further would contend that all temporary employees who could not be regularized for want of vacancies including the writ petitioners were extended only minimum time scale as per the Circular Roc.No.42344/87- Ms, dated 03.03.1989 and were later irregularly sanctioned annual grade increments pursuant to a letter of the 2"^^ respondent vide L.Ds.No.14160/99- Ms, dated 05.07.1999 to the 4*'^ respondent contrary to the above said circular Memo, dated 03.03.1989. He would further submit that the 3^^^ respondent issued letter, dated 05.07.1999 which is without power and contrary to law have gone undetected, as it refers to the very same proceedings in Roc.No.42344/87-Ms, dated 03.03.1989 which provides for minimum of time scale only and not annual grade increments. He submits that unless the person holds lien on permanent post prior to substantive appointment and fixation thereof, the question of pay protection under FR 22 shall not arise and as such the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside and sought to allow the writ appeal. 10. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners would submit that regularization of the services of the petitioners, pay could not be reduced and even if regularization was prospectively made, the pay of the petitioners receiving at the time of regularization should have been protected. He further contends that similarly situated workers working in Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation raised the pay on were same grievance and approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.2855 of 2012 and batch for protection of pay scale and also retrospective regularization from the date of completion of five years of service. The said O.A. was partly allowed by Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad by order, dated 15.06.2015 directing the respondents therein to give protection of pay which was being drawn prior to regularization of services. But, their prayer for retrospective regularization had been rejected. Against the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, the respondents therein filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7537 of 2016 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The said writ petition dismissed by a Division Bench by judgment, dated 10.03.2016. In the light of the said judgment, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners contends that the issue involved was in the present case is squarely covered by the said judgment which was subsequently followed by a Division Bench of this Court 7 in W.P.No.2969 of 2021 dated 21.02.2022 and accordingly, he sought to dismiss the writ appeal. 11. This Court gave anxious consideration to the submissions made by respective counsel appearing on either side and carefully examined the material available on record. 12. The admitted facts are that the petitioners were initially appointed during the year 1980, 1984, 1985 and 1988 onwards on daily, wage basis in the 4**^ respondent Corporation. They approached the then Administrative Tribunal by filing RP.No.20634 to 20646 of 1989 for regularization of their services in terms of G.O.ms.No.1320, MA, dated 15.12.1981. The Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the regularization of the petitioners. The 3'^'* respondent issued a letter vide L.Dis.No. 14160/99-Ms, dated 05.07.1989. Periodical increments were also released to the petitioners and they were being extended minimum time scale in the year 1989 along with increments, pending regularization of their services. The services of the petitioners were regularized by the 1®* respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.438, MA&UD Department, dated 30.06.2019 prospectively from the date of issue of orders, but the pay drawn by the petitioners prior to regularization of their services was not protected. Consequently, their pay has been re-fixed in the minimum time scale at the initial stage and thereby their salary has been considerably reduced to their detriment causing much financial hardship. The orders, dated 14.07.2019 and 20.03.2019 are the consequential orders issued by the respondent Nos.3 and 4. 8 13. This Court carefully perused the judgment, dated 10.03.2016 in W.P.No.7537 of 2016 rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh and the judgment, dated 21.02.2022 in W.P.No.2969 of 2021 rendered by a Coordinate Division Bench of this Court. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the common High Court while dealing with the W.P.No.7537 of 2016 categorically gave a finding that the petitioner- corporation therein cannot fix the pay lesser than the pay scale which being paid to the respondents therein as on the date of their regularization. By following the judgment of the common High Court, a Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2969 of 2021 held as extracted herein under: “There is absolutely no controversy with regard to the above legal position, as extracted supra. In the instant case, the ground reality remains that, when similarly situated individuals approached the Tribunal, by way of filing Original Applications, the Tribunal issued similar directions, directing protection of pay. It is also not in dispute that questioning the validity of the said order passed by the Tribunal, petitioner-corporation filed W.P.No.7537 of 2016. The common High Court, while dealing with the issue, categorically recorded a finding that the petitioner-corporation cannot fix the pay lesser than the pay scale which was being paid to the private respondents as on the date of their regularization. It is also not in controversy that the petitioner-Corporation implemented the said orders and extended the benefit to the applicants in the aforesaid Original Applications. In view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, as confirmed by the common High Court, in the aforesaid Writ Petition, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners would not render any assistance to the case of the petitioners herein”. . same issue in was 9 14. It is further to be noted that the judgment in W.P.Nb.7537 of 2016 rendered by a Division Bench of Common High Court and the judgment in W.P.No.2969 of 2021 rendered by a Division Bench of this High Court attained finality. In the light of the judgments rendered by Division Benches of High Court stated supra, in our considered opinion, the Appellant-Corporation herein is not entitled to fix the pay less than the pay scale which was being paid to the respondents/writ petitioners herein as on the date of their regularization. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the learned single Judge. 15. For the aforementioned reasons, this writ appeal is dismissed. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A VIJAYA BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Dne CC to Sri. Potham Vengala Reddy SC For Municipal Corporation [OPUC] One CC to Sri. P Raghavendra Reddy Advocate [OPUC] ^3/ Two CCs to GP for Services IV, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. Two CCs to GP for Services I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] ^ Two CD Copies GSC »- C: • HIGH COURT DATED: 10/10/2025 ORDER WA NO. 848 OF 2023 DISMISSING THE WA WITHOUT COSTS