APHC010075632026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WP(PIL) NO: 112 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:- 47 [3580] Arch Bishop Dr. Ashok Babu Chegudi @ Joshua Daniel ...Petitioner Vs. The Union of India and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. M. Solomon Raju Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP for Law & Legislative Affairs, Mr. Y. N. Vivekananda CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 25th June, 2026. LISA GILL, CJ (Oral) : Present Writ Petition has been filed purportedly in public interest seeking extension of all welfare and service benefits, including five additional Casual Leaves and 180 days of Child Care Leave to women employees of this Court and the district judiciary, on par with women employees working in other State Government departments. It is further prayed that protective and welfare oriented measures be put in place to ensure a work-life balance. 2. It is undeniable that the issues sought to be raised in this matter pertain to purely service matters. Page 2 of 4 HCJ & RRRJ WP(PIL)_112_2026 3. It has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments that a service dispute cannot be raised by way of a Public Interest Litigation. Gainful reference can be made to judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto, (2010) 9 SCC 655, Vishal Ashok Thorat v. Rajesh Shrirambapu, (2020) 18 SCC 673, Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others vs. Jintendra Kumar Mishra and others, (1998) 7 SCC 273. In the case of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 1 SCC 590, it has been held as under: “11. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so-called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, 1998 (4) SCT 213 (SC), this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the Courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Apart from the sinister manner, if any, of getting such copies, the real brain or HCJ & RRRJ WP(PIL)_112_2026 force behind such cases would get exposed to find out the truth and motive behind the petition. Whenever such frivolous pleas, as noted, are taken to explain possession, the Court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore-stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts.” 4. Learned counsel for petitioner however submits that in view of decision dated 03.11.2023 of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Pratap Singh Bist v. The Director, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others MANU/SCOR/144116/2023, the matter should be examined on merits and not be shown the door at the very threshold. Reference is made to observations in paragraph 4 of said decision dated 03.11.2023, which reads as under: “4. In this view of the matter and having regard to the fact that the respondent Nos.5 to 17 have already served for almost 15 years, we are not inclined to entertain these special leave petitions against their selection or appointment. However, the second reason assigned by the High Court, namely, that “PIL is not at all maintainable in service matters” in view of the decision of this Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others vs. Jintendra Kumar Mishra and others, (1998) 7 SCC 273, is a debatable issue and the said question of law is kept open, to be gone into an appropriate case.” 5. A bare perusal of the above said reveals that it has been observed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court that whether a service matter can be entertained by way of a Public Interest Litigation or not is a debatable issue and the question of law was kept open to be adjudicated upon in an appropriate case. However, learned counsel for petitioner is unable to point out any order or HCJ & RRRJ WP(PIL)_112_2026 decision thereafter, whereby the matter has been settled. Therefore, judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court as are detailed in foregoing paragraphs still hold the field and are binding on this Court. 6. Present Writ Petition is thus dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of accordingly. LISA GILL, CJ. R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. SSN Whether the order is Speaking/Reasoned : Yes / No Whether the order is Reportable : Yes / No