APHC010047532005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 15422 of 2005 Bench Sr.No:- 13 [3506] B.N. Chandramouli, ...Petitioner Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner: POODATTU AMARENDER Advocate for Respondent: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 12th March 2026 This Court made the following order: This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: “….to issue an order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 3rd Respondent in issuing impugned proceedings Rc.No.2342/A5/2004 dated 29.01.2005 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same with a further direction to the Respondents to count the unaided approved service of the petitioner from the date of his appointment for the purpose of increments and pension and also refix the pay of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment with all other consequential attendant benefits in accordance with Rules as was done in case of similarly situated persons and to pass….” 2 2. (a) Petitioner stated to have been selected in unaided post in the stream of Science as B.Ed Assistant by proceedings dated 26.06.1996. Later, he came to be absorbed into grant-in-aid with effect from 16.12.2003. By proceedings dated 12.04.2004, formal orders came to be issued indicating that petitioner has been absorbed with effect from aforesaid date and that he would work as apprentice for a period of two years and in terms of G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 16.08.2001, he would be paid stipend of Rs.15000/- for the first year and Rs.18,000/- for the second year. That triggered petitioner to make representation dated 22.07.2004, requesting 3rd respondent to exclude him from the purview of G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 16.08.2001, inasmuch as the same has no application to him as he was already in service in unaided post and also made a request for continuing his unaided service from 01.07.1996 till the date of absorption i.e., 15.12.2003 for the purposes of future service benefits. (b) As the aforesaid representation was not being attended, petitioner preferred W.P.No.18249 of 2004 before this Court and this Court, by order dated 07.10.2004, disposed of the writ petition directing 3rd respondent to consider petitioner’s representation and pass appropriate orders. Eventually, 3 3rd respondent passed impugned order dated 29.01.2005 rejecting petitioner’s representation. Assailing the same, present writ petition is filed. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 filed counter affidavit opposing writ petition. 4. Heard Sri P. Amarender, learned counsel for petitioner,appearing through virtual mode, and learned Government Pleader for Education, appearing for respondents. 5. (a) Learned counsel for petitioner contended that by virtue of the Andhra Pradesh Private Aided Educational Staff (Regulation of Pay) Act, 2000 (for brevity “Act 9 of 2000”) read with memo dated 07.08.2002, the claim of petitioner to treat unaided service for the purpose of extending service benefits such as re-fixation of pay, increments and pension, ought not to have been rejected. It is also contended that inasmuch as Government has extended aforesaid benefits to teaching staff of Junior and Degree Colleges in pursuance to G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 05.04.2004, refusing similar treatment clearly tantamount to arbitrariness and hit by Article 14 of Constitution of India. 4 (b) Further it is also contended that one of the B.Ed Assistant Teacher, who has been admitted to grant-in-aid, has been issued proceedings dated 16.12.2002 allowing re-fixation of pay scale and that petitioner is stated to be similarly situated;therefore, he is entitled to be extended the same benefit. To buttress his argumentsthat petitioner is entitled for counting of unaided service for the purpose of pensionary benefits, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others1and on the order of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.34552 of 2016. 6. (a) On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education, appearing for the respondents, while reiterating the stand taken in counter affidavit, contended that the request of petitioner for counting past service in unaided vacancy for extending the benefits, as claimed above, is clearly untenable, inasmuch as neither the provisions of Act 9 of 2000 nor memo dated 07.08.2002 would have any application. Further that even the said enactment stood repealed vide The Andhra Pradesh Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees (Regulation of 1 (2020) 1 SCC (L & S) 5 Pay) Act, 2005 (for brevity “Act 37 of 2005”) and both these enactments have restricted the benefit of Automatic Advancement Scheme and Career Advancement Scheme by excluding the period of service rendered in unaided vacancy.Therefore, petitioner, even otherwise, will be entitled to service benefits from the date of the absorption. (b) Learned Assistant Government Pleader further contended that G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 05.04.2004, will have application only to Junior College and Degree College teaching faculty, and at any rate, extending any monetary benefits to teachers working in primary and secondary schools would fall within the fulcrum of fiscal policy, which Government alone is entitled to decide. Therefore, petitioner cannot be extended with benefits as claimed in writ petition and 3rd respondent rightly rejected the same. Therefore, question of claiming parity or discrimination does not arise. It is also contended that plea of petitioner that one of the teachers has been refixed pay scale by construing initial date of appointment in unaided vacancy was prior to Act 9 of 2000 coming into force and at any rate, even otherwise, the said person is also entitled for benefits only from the date of absorption alone. Therefore, one cannot claim 6 negative parity which otherwise is not based on any statutory provision or Governmental order. 7. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels. 8. Petitioner has been initially appointed in unaided vacancy as B.Ed Assistant, of course such appointment dated 26.06.1996 was inconsonance with the procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994. Later, he came to be absorbed in grant-in-aid post on 16.12.2003. Only after the formal orders of absorption was issued on 12.04.2004, petitioner had come up with request for considering his service in unaided vacancy to be taken into consideration for the purpose of extending service benefits. Therefore, question that false for consideration is as to whether petitioner is entitled to claim for past service in unaided vacancy for the purpose of refixation of pay scale, incrementsand pension. The entire of case has been set up based on Act 9 of 2000 read with Memo dated 07.08.2002. 9. Before proceeding further to deal with aforesaid submission, it is to be noticed that Act 9 of 2000 was later repealed by virtue of Section 6 of Act 37 of 2005. The purpose of introducing Act 9 of 2000, as discernable from preamble to the 7 said Act appears to be founded on the premise that Government had to incur huge expenditure in order to meet implications of Automatic Advancement Scheme and Career Advancement Scheme as extended to in private aided management, considering the services rendered prior to the date of admission into grant-in-aid. In that context, Section 2 of the said enactment has restricted the period spent from initial date of appointment in unaided vacancy till admitting into grant-in-aid for the purpose of fixation of pay, the benefits under aforesaid schemes and also pension. Though learned counsel for petitioner tried to take support of the said enactment to claim that petitioner is to be extended service benefits by construing initial date of appointment in unaided vacancy, provisions of the said Act envisage otherwise. Even memo, dated 07.08.2002, merely reiterates the contents of Act 9 of 2000. In fact,the said enactment initially was given retrospective effect from 10.01.1980; however, later an amendment was brought into make it prospective. 10. In considered opinion of this Court neither Act 9 of 2000 nor memo, dated 07.08.2002, really do not come to the aid of petitioner,as they, infact, restrict the unaided service from being 8 considered for the purpose of even Career Advancement Scheme and Automatic Advancement Scheme. Later enactment i.e., Act 37 of 2005, which was brought in by repealing Act 9 of 2000, also clearly envisaged that employee of private educational institution shall be entitled for counting of service for fixation of payunder Automatic Advancement Scheme and Career Advancement Scheme andfor pension from the date of approval of his appointment in an aided post and not prior to. 11. Though neither learned counsel for petitioner nor learned counsel for respondents have addressed this Court as to challenge laid to aforesaid enactment,it is the duty of the Court to notice that the said enactment has eventually been struck down by this Court in W.P.No.18249 of 2004. Except for restriction being placed in regard to counting of service for the purpose of pension,the rest of the provisions have been held to be unconstitutional, andaccordingly, writ petition came to be disposed of. The analogy that was applied by Division Bench while dealing challenge to aforesaid enactment was that Government would in no manner have any financial implications if the past period spent in unaided vacancy is otherwise included for the purpose of extending Automatic Advancement Scheme 9 and Career Advancement Scheme or for that matter for fixation of pay, inasmuch as liability would clearly rests on private institutions with whom employees had worked at relevant point of time and Government should only be concerned with the service post-admission of employee into grant-in-aid. 12. No doubt, Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 05.04.2004, by which it extended the benefit of Automatic Advancement Scheme and Career Advancement Scheme and also the pension by construing the service rendered in unaided post to both teaching and non teaching staff of private aided Junior Collegesand Degree Colleges. Granting such a benefit would have monetary implications and in fiscal matters, it is for the Government to take a policy decision to extend any such benefit to other class of teachers of primary and secondary schools. Though learned counsel for petitioner tried to persuade that extending the fiscal benefits only to Junior College and Degree College employees alone clearly amounted to discrimination, yet, this Court is of the opinion that any right to claim fiscal or monetary benefit should emanate from either by way of statutory right or by way of Government decision in that regard. 10 13. Coming to the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner atleast is entitled for consideration of unaided service for thepurpose of computation of pension, in support of which, reliance has been placed onthe judgment referred supra, this Court finds that there is certain distinction between the orders cited therein and the facts before this Court. In the case referred to above, petitioners therein were initially appointed on temporary basis, and later they sought for regularization along with all other consequential service benefits, including pensionary benefits. In that context, the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Division bench of this Court, while construing the qualifying service, have held that even the initial appointment of employee, be it permanent or temporary,is required to be reckoned; however, provided his service conditions and pay were determined by the Government.In other words, the initial employment even it were to be on adhoc basis or permanent, should be with the same employer i.e., the Government and the service conditions and salaries should be as prescribedfor the Government agency. 14. In the present case, though petitioner had been selected by duly appointed selection committee as envisaged under the provisions of Education Act, nevertheless, such appointment is in 11 unaided vacancy purely on contractual basis with the service conditions as devised by private institutions. It is only after petitioner came to be absorbed into grant-in-aid, he has been extended all the service benefits as applicable to Government teacher for all purposes.Therefore, the nature of service conditions clearly altered and even the paymaster also changed. Therefore, the judgments cited above stand on different footing and petitioner cannot seek reliance on the same. 15. Coming to the last submission that one of the teachershas been extended the benefits, though learned counsel for petitioner made oral submission, the same does not emanate from the pleading. Be that as it may, merely because one of the teachers has been considered and extended the benefit of refixation of pay scale, in the absence of any right, as such, being established for claiming such benefit, this Court cannot extend the analogy of parity as the same would have financial consequences. It is a matter of policy for the State to consider such request in over all interest of the State. 16. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner made a request that petitioner be given liberty to make a representation to the Government for extending service benefits, as was granted to 12 Junior and Degree College lecturersin terms of G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 05.04.2004, as the same is a matter of policy and later the Government take a decision on the same. 17. This Court opines that the said request requires genuine attention; therefore, petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon such request being made, 1st respondent is directed to consider the same and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 18. With the above direction, Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 12.03.2026 ANS 13 301 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 15422 of 2005 Date: 12.03.2026 ANS