1 APHC010550922024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 28699/2024 Between: N Sree Rami Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES III 2. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents in fixing the pay scales of the petitioners in their respective schools without counting their unaided service i.e from 2 the date of approval of their appointments as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to revise the pay scales of all the petitioners for Aided Posts by taking into account of their service rendered in unaided post i.e., from the date of approval in their respective schools. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for the respondents. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners‟ appointments were approved by the competent authority prior to 2000 itself and they were absorbed into the Grant-in-aid posts at a later date. The petitioners were not selected by direct recruitment into the aided posts as per Sub-Rule (4a) of Rule 12 of G.O.Ms.No.1 Education (P.S.2) Department dated 01.01.1994. The 4th respondent has submitted proposals to the competent authority for sanction of automatic advancement scales in respect of the petitioners. It is submitted that at the time of absorption the pay of petitioners has been reduced to Rs.1,200/- per month for 1st year and Rs.1,500/- per month for the second year during apprenticeship period and their pay scale has been fixed with Rs.3,750/- as basic pay which 3 has been received by them from their initial appointments itself. The petitioners pay fixation was not done properly and their entire service rendered in unaided post was totally ignored and the increments received by them during that period has not been counted for fixation of their present pay scales, which are contrary to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Y.Sidda Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh1 and the same were passed declaring the Ordinance as illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, more particularly Section 4(1) of the Ordinance is irrational and arbitrary. Following the said judgment, subsequent Act was assailed in a batch of writ petitions. The said Act was considered in W.P.No.3460 of 2010 and batch and the said batch of writ petitions were also disposed of in same lines. But surprisingly, the respondents while deciding the issue has not considered the observations made by the Division Bench in Y.Sidda Reddy‟s case (supra 1). In the said judgment, the Division Bench has categorically observed with regard to career advancement scheme and the automatic advancement scheme. The relevant portion reads as follows: 1 2006 (3) ALD 546 4 “…..When the primary liability to make the payment in accordance with the terms of the above mentioned schemes is on the managements, it is the look out of the management to maintain a proper record of the length of the service of the employees. By making a declaration such as the one made under Section 3 insofar as the career advancement scheme and the automatic advancement scheme are concerned, the Legislature in our view only made an arbitrary declaration that the unaided service shall not be counted for the purpose of conferring the benefits of the above mentioned schemes without there being any rational State purpose. On the other hand such a declaration only enables the employer to defer the benefit of those schemes to the employees though the employee rendered long service which but for the arbitrary legislative declaration entitles the employee for the benefits of the above mentioned two schemes. The professed purpose of the above mentioned two schemes is to give some monetary benefit to the employees who have no opportunity of any promotions in the service and consequent stagnation in their income. The two schemes are still in force and the State thinks it fit to continue the same, but by the terms of the Ordinance the employees are irrationally deprived of the benefits of the schemes. (We therefore hold that Section 3 to the above mentioned extent is unconstitutional).” 4. In the above referred judgment, the Court clearly pointed out that the automatic advancement scheme is only to provide certain financial benefits to the persons based on the stagnation for a long 5 period and there is no rational for the State to deny such benefits to the persons whether they are aided or unaided. 5. Further, the learned counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that in fact based on the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Y.Sidda Reddy’s case (supra 1), the respondents have implemented and extended the benefits to the identical teachers and the said orders were placed along with the memo. On perusal of the said orders, it shows that though they were all pertain to State of Telangana, the benefits, which were granted, were based on the judgment passed by the Division Bench, more particularly with regard to Andhra Pradesh Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees (Regulation of Pay) Act, 2005 (for short, „the Act 37 of 2005‟). When that being the situation, the respondents ought not to have rejected the case of the petitioners to reckon the period of services rendered by the petitioners for the purpose of career advancement scheme and automatic advancement scheme. 6. Reply to the said contentions, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents placed reliance on Sections 3 and 4 of the Act 37 of 2005. Section 3 of the Act 37 of 2005 is pertaining to Counting of Service for fixation of pay, Automatic 6 Advancement Scheme, Career Advancement Scheme and Pension. Section 4 of the Act 37 of 2005 deals with abatement of claims and Section 4(1) of the Act 37 of 2005 deals with the orders issued by the Government directing to take into account the increments earned by an employee of a Private Aided Educational Institution prior to the date of admission of the post to grant-in-aid for the purpose of fixation of pay. While considering these two provisions, the Division Bench declared only Section 4(1) of the Act 37 of 2005 as unconstitutional and irrational and upheld Section 3 of the Act 37 of 2005. In support of his contention, he has relied on the orders passed by the Division Bench in W.P.No.3460 of 2010 and batch, wherein the Division Bench, while upholding the vires of Section 3 of the Act 37 of 2005, declared Section 4(1) of the Act 37 of 2005 as unconstitutional. Since the Division Bench declared only Section 4(1) of the Act 37 of 2005 as unconstitutional, the authorities rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners as per Section 3 of the Act 37 of 2005. 7. In reply to the said contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners made her submissions based on the observations of the Division Bench. In fact, though the Division Bench did not strike down Section 3 of the Act 37 of 2005, it observed that Section 3 of 7 the Act 37 of 2005 is irrational and illogical. Once certain monetary benefits are provided, the State, considering the stagnation of service, should not discriminate, particularly in counting service, whether it is aided or unaided. Further, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Uday Pratap Thakur v. State of Bihar2, wherein it was observed that service should be counted for pensionary benefits, whether permanent or work charged and hence, it directed that work charged service be counted for the purpose of pension. 8. Considering the above submissions and on perusal of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.3460 of 2010 and 19171 of 2015, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to revise the pay scales of all the petitioners for Aided Posts by taking into account of their services rendered in unaided post i.e., from the date of approval in their respective schools and communicate to the petitioners within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 527 8 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date:18.02.2026 GK 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH 45 WRIT PETITION No.28699 OF 2024 Dated:18.02.2026 GK