Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
K Vijayalakshmi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 June, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
****
WRIT PETITION No. 3784 OF 2023
Between:
1. K VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O MUNESWARARAO, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC
CONTRACT SUPERVISOR, ULAVAPADU (PROJECT), SPSR
NELLORE DISTRICT.
2. V. MARY HELEN,, W/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC
CONTRACT SUPERVISOR, KANKIPADU (PROJECT), KRISHNA
DISTRICT.
3. K. DEVA SENA,, W/O SRIDHAR, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC CONTRACT
SUPERVISOR, MADDIPADU (PROJECT), BAPATLA DISTRICT.
4. K. BALAMANI,, W/O SUBRAMANYAM, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC
CONTRACT SUPERVISOR, KOYYURU (PROJECT),
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
5. V. RAVANAMMA,, D/O KURMAIAH, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC
CONTRACT SUPERVISOR, KRUPAM (PROJECT), PARVATHIPURAM
(MANYAM) DISTRICT.
6. B. SATHYAVATHI,, W/O RAMAKRISHNA,O AGED 58 YEARS, OCC
CONTRACT SUPERVISOR, NARSIPATNAM (PROJECT),
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PLR SECRETARY
WOMEN PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD
WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE, DEPARTMENT
WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF
ANDHRA PRADESH, JAMPANI TOWERS, GUNTUR, GUNTUR
2
DISTRICT.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE,
DEPARTMENT WOMEN DEVELOPMENT 86 CHILD WELFARE,
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, JAMPANI TOWERS,
GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT WOMEN
DEVELOPMENT 85 CHILD WELFARE, NELLORE REGION, SPSR
NELLORE DISTRICT.
5. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT WOMEN
DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE, KRISHNA REGION,
KRISHNA DISTRICT.
6. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT WOMEN
DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE, GUNTUR REGION,
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
7. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT WOMEN
DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE, VISAKHAPATNAM REGION,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S):
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 05.06.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes / No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes / No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes / No
_______________________________
3
G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
4
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
+ WRIT PETITION No.3784 of 2023
% 05.06.2025
Between:
1. K VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O MUNESWARARAO, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC
CONTRACT SUPERVISOR, ULAVAPADU (PROJECT), SPSR
NELLORE DISTRICT.
2. V. MARY HELEN,, W/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC
CONTRACT SUPERVISOR, KANKIPADU (PROJECT), KRISHNA
DISTRICT.
3. K. DEVA SENA,, W/O SRIDHAR, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC CONTRACT
SUPERVISOR, MADDIPADU (PROJECT), BAPATLA DISTRICT.
4. K. BALAMANI,, W/O SUBRAMANYAM, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC
CONTRACT SUPERVISOR, KOYYURU (PROJECT),
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
5. V. RAVANAMMA,, D/O KURMAIAH, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC
CONTRACT SUPERVISOR, KRUPAM (PROJECT), PARVATHIPURAM
(MANYAM) DISTRICT.
6. B. SATHYAVATHI,, W/O RAMAKRISHNA,O AGED 58 YEARS, OCC
CONTRACT SUPERVISOR, NARSIPATNAM (PROJECT),
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PLR SECRETARY
WOMEN PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD
WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE, DEPARTMENT
WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF
ANDHRA PRADESH, JAMPANI TOWERS, GUNTUR, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
5
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE,
DEPARTMENT WOMEN DEVELOPMENT 86 CHILD WELFARE,
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, JAMPANI TOWERS,
GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT WOMEN
DEVELOPMENT 85 CHILD WELFARE, NELLORE REGION, SPSR
NELLORE DISTRICT.
5. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT WOMEN
DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE, KRISHNA REGION,
KRISHNA DISTRICT.
6. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT WOMEN
DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE, GUNTUR REGION,
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
7. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT WOMEN
DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE, VISAKHAPATNAM REGION,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S):
! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri J. Sudheer, learned Counsel for
the Writ Petitioners
^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri K. Amrith Raj, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Services-II.
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. State of Gujarat Vs. R.L. Keshav Lal : (1980) 4 SCC 653,
2. State of Assam Vs. Kanak Chandra Dutta : (1967) 1 SCR 679,
3. Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya Vs. District Development
Officer, Dahod : (2022) 16 SCC 343,
4. State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh : (2017) 1 SCC 148,
6
5. Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Ors. : 2024 SCC Online SC 3826
7
APHC010075712023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3328]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 3784/2023
Between:
1. K VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O MUNESWARARAO, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC
CONTRACT SUPERVISOR, ULAVAPADU (PROJECT), SPSR
NELLORE DISTRICT.
2. V. MARY HELEN,, W/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC
CONTRACT SUPERVISOR, KANKIPADU (PROJECT), KRISHNA
DISTRICT.
3. K. DEVA SENA,, W/O SRIDHAR, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC CONTRACT
SUPERVISOR, MADDIPADU (PROJECT), BAPATLA DISTRICT.
4. K. BALAMANI,, W/O SUBRAMANYAM, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC
CONTRACT SUPERVISOR, KOYYURU (PROJECT),
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
5. V. RAVANAMMA,, D/O KURMAIAH, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC
CONTRACT SUPERVISOR, KRUPAM (PROJECT), PARVATHIPURAM
(MANYAM) DISTRICT.
6. B. SATHYAVATHI,, W/O RAMAKRISHNA,O AGED 58 YEARS, OCC
CONTRACT SUPERVISOR, NARSIPATNAM (PROJECT),
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PLR SECRETARY
WOMEN PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD
8
WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE, DEPARTMENT
WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF
ANDHRA PRADESH, JAMPANI TOWERS, GUNTUR, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE,
DEPARTMENT WOMEN DEVELOPMENT 86 CHILD WELFARE,
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, JAMPANI TOWERS,
GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT WOMEN
DEVELOPMENT 85 CHILD WELFARE, NELLORE REGION, SPSR
NELLORE DISTRICT.
5. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT WOMEN
DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE, KRISHNA REGION,
KRISHNA DISTRICT.
6. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT WOMEN
DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE, GUNTUR REGION,
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
7. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT WOMEN
DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE, VISAKHAPATNAM REGION,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. J SUDHEER
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES II
The Court made the following:
9
ORDER:
Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners
appearing online assisted by Sri S. Prahaas, learned Counsel and Sri K.
Amrith Raj, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II.
2.1. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under:
―It is humbly prayed to declare that the contract
employees/petitioners would fall under the definition of
―Government Employee‖ and are governed under Act 23
of 1984 as amended from time to time and thereby the
petitioners are entitled to continue in service till attaining
the age of 62 years on par with regular Government
Employees, which is in tune with the language, spirit and
object of Act 23 of 1984 and consequently direct the
respondents to continue the petitioners till they attain the
age of 62 years on par with regular employees under Act
23 of 1984 with all consequential benefits and attendant
benefits or in alternate to direct the respondents to
continue the petitioners upto the age of 60 years on par
with others/Part Time Junior Lecturers working in
Government Junior Colleges, who are similarly placed like
the petitioners by holding the action of the respondents in
not doing so and contemplating to retire the petitioners
from service by not extending the further contract, solely
on the ground that the petitioners attained 58 years of age
as meted out to the colleagues of the petitioners as bad,
irrational, illegal, unfair, arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary
to the spirit and object of Act 28 of 1984 as amended from
time to time, unconstitutional by issuance of Writ of
Mandamus or issue any Writ, Order or Direction and pass
such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.‖2.2. When this case was listed for admission, the learned Single Judge of
this Court (my Predecessor), vide Order dated 12.05.2023, had directed the
Respondents to continue the services of the Writ Petitioners without reference
to the age of 58 years. This Order is in operation till date.
10
Submissions of Writ Petitioners:
3. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners submits that the Writ
Petitioners were initially appointed as Anganwadi Workers on contract basis
in the years 1986, 1989, 1980, 1990, 1989 and 1990 respectively; that they
have been appointed on contract basis in the higher post i.e., Contract
Supervisors in the years 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2007 respectively and
they are now continuing in the same position as such; that the said Writ
Petitioners have rendered their services as Anganwadi Workers and are now
rendering services as Contract Supervisors to the satisfaction of one and all
and they have continued in service without any break; that despite rendering
satisfactory service, since the Writ Petitioners were not being regularized, the
Writ Petitioners filed W.P.No.38777 of 2022 seeking regularization of their
services and that the said Writ Petition is still pending on the file of this Court;
that now, all the Writ Petitioners have put in almost 30 years of service as
Anganwadi workers and as Contract Supervisors on contract basis with a fond
hope that their services would be regularized and be paid regular salaries; and
that till now, the Writ Petitioners have been sustaining on meager salaries.
3.1. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners
that some of the persons, working in similar posts, on contract basis, were
retired from the service at the age of 58 years while the regular employees in
the same Department and performing similar functions were being continued
beyond the age of 58 years; that some of them were made to retire at 60
years and now they (the regular employees) are made to retire at 62 years by
virtue of the amendment made to the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment
(Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2022 dated
14.02.2022; that the said Amendment Act, 2022 has enhanced the age of
superannuation from 60 years to 62 years for persons who are appointed to
public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State; that the
Writ Petitioners apprehend that they will not be getting any extension of their
contract beyond 58 years and hence have approached this Court seeking a
11
declaration that the benefit of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment
(Regulation of age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 as granted on 14.02.2022 by
Amendment Act, 2022, enhancing the age from 60 to 62 years, be extended
to the Writ Petitioners inasmuch as they have been appointed to public service
and posts in connection with the affairs of the State.
4. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that the
Petitioners herein are placing reliance on the provisions of the Andhra
Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and would contend that
since they have been appointed on contract basis, which is governed under
Rule 9 of the Rules 1996, they are also entitled to the benefit of extension of
the age of superannuation up to 62 years thereby, permitting the Writ
Petitioners to continue in service till the completion of 62 years of age.
Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would contend that the Act 23 of
1984 (The Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of
Superannuation) Act, 1984) defines the Government Employee to include the
categories of Officers and Employees referred to in Section 1(2) of the Act 23
of 1984. Section 1(2) would specify that the persons appointed to public
services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State and whose
salaries and allowances are paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the State
and every other Officer or employee whose conditions of service are regulated
by the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of
India shall be entitled for the benefit of the Amendment Act, 2022. The
relevant provisions of the Act 23 of 1984 are usefully extracted hereunder:
―1.Short title, application and commencement – (1) This
Act may be called the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment
(Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984.
(2) It shall apply to–
(i) persons appointed to public services and posts in
connection with the affairs of the State;
(ii) officers and other employees working in any local
authority, whose salaries and allowances are paid
out of the Consolidated Fund of the State;
12
(iii) persons appointed to the Secretariat staff of the
Houses of the State Legislature; and
(iv) every other officer or employee whose conditions
of service are regulated by rules framed under the
proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India
immediately before the commencement of this Act,
other than the village officers and law officers;
whether appointed before or after the
commencement of this Act.
2. Definitions – In this Act, unless the context other-wise
requires, —
(1) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
(2) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
(3) ―Government employee‖ includes all categories
of officers and employees referred to in sub
-section (2) of section 1.‖
5. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has drawn the attention of this
Court to the Gazette Publication dated 14.03.2022 as regards the amendment
sought to be made by virtue of the Act 1 of 2022 namely the Andhra Pradesh
Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act,
2022. The relevant portion of the Statement of Objects and Reasons are
usefully extracted hereunder:
―There has been significant improvement in the
average life expectancy compared to that in 2014. As per
the World Health Organization, the global average life
expectancy in 2019 around 73 years and the average
Indian lived up to 70 years. There has been improved
health conditions in general also;
It is considered that in order to utilize the experience
and expertise of the senior employees and considering the
increased life expectancy and improved health conditions in
general, proposed to enhance the current age of
superannuation of 60 years to 62 years to all the State
Government employees covered under the Andhra Pradesh
Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation)
Act, 1984 and to give effect to the decision from
01.01.2022. In order to give effect to the above, it is
necessary to promulgate an ordinance.‖
13
6. The relevant portion of the Amendment Act 1 of 2022 published in the
Gazette Notification on 14.02.2022 is also usefully extracted hereunder:
―2. In the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment
(Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984,
(hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in section 3,-
(1) in sub-section(1), for the words ―sixty years‖ the
words ―sixty two years‖ shall be substituted.
(2) in sub-section (2), for the words ―sixty years‖, the
words ―sixty two years‖ shall be substituted.
(3) in sub-section (3),-
(a) for the words ―sixty years‖, the words
―sixty two years‖ shall be substituted.
(b) in Explanation-II, for words ―sixty years‖,
the words ―sixty two years‖ shall be
substituted.
(4) in sub-section (4),-
(a) in clause (a), for the words ―sixty years‖,
the words ―sixty two years‖ shall be
substituted.
(b) in clause (b), for the words ―sixty years‖,
the words ―sixty two years‖ shall be
substituted.‖
7. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has drawn the attention of this
Court to Rule – 4 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules,
1996. Rule 4 of the Rules 1996 is usefully extracted hereunder:
―4. Method of appointment:- (a) Appointment to any
service, class or category shall be by one or more of the
methods indicated below as may be specified in the Special
Rules applicable to the relevant post : –
1. Direct recruitment,
2. Recruitment/appointment by transfer,
3. Promotion, or
4. Contract/Agreement/Re-employment.
14
(b) Direct Recruitment: – Where the normal method of
recruitment to any service, class or category includes direct
recruitment, the proportion in which the special rules may require
vacancies to be filled by persons recruited direct shall be
applicable to all substantive vacancies and direct recruitment
shall be made only against the substantive vacancies.
Explanation:- (i) For the purpose of this rule,
notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or special or
ad hoc rules, substantive vacancies shall mean all vacancies in
the permanent cadre and all vacancies in the posts which have
been in existence for more than 5 years.
(ii) The posts earmarked for direct recruitment in the
Special Rules/Adhoc Rules shall be filled by direct recruits strictly
and not by any other method.
[(iii) The percentage earmarked for direct recruitment
should not fall short of 33-1/3% in respect of posts in State
Service and 30% in respect of posts in Subordinate Service.]‖
8. It is submitted that the said Rule 4(a)(4) takes into its fold any Officer or
employee whose appointment has been made by contract or agreement to the
public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State and shall
also be entitled for the benefit of the extension of the age of superannuation.
Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that the salaries that
are received by the Writ Petitioners are paid out of the Consolidated Fund of
the State inasmuch as the Government of Andhra Pradesh bears 75% while
the Union of India bears 25% of the amount paid to the Writ Petitioners as
salary who are on contract basis.
9. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has drawn the attention of this
Court to Rule – 4 and Rule – 9 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate
Service Rules, 1996. He would submit that these Rules have been
promulgated in exercise of the power conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India. He would submit that Clause-(iv) of Section 1(2) of the
Act 23 of 1984 would clearly state that every other Officer or employee whose
conditions of service are regulated by Rules framed under the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India shall also be governed by the Act 23 of
1984. He would therefore, submit that since the Andhra Pradesh State and
15
Subordinate Service Rules have been promulgated in exercise of the powers
conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, such of those
other Officers or employees governed by the Andhra Pradesh State and
Subordinate Rules, 1996 are also entitled for the benefit of Act 23 of 1984 and
the subsequent changes/amendments made to the said enactment. He has
drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 9 of the Rules 1996. Rule 9 of the
Rules 1996 is usefully extracted hereunder:
―9. Appointment By Agreement Or Contract :-
(a) (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or
special rules it shall be open to the State Government to make
appointment to any post in a service, class or category, otherwise
than in accordance with these rules or special rules and to
provide by agreement or contract with the person(s) so
appointed, for any of the matters in respect of which, in the
opinion of the State Government, special provisions are required
to be made and to the extent to which such provisions are made
in the agreement or contract, nothing in these rules or the special
rules shall apply to any person so appointed in respect of any
matter for which the provision is made in the agreement or
contract:
Provided that in every agreement or contract made in
exercise of the powers conferred by these rules, it shall further be
provided that in respect of any matter in which no provision has
been made in the agreement or contract, provisions of these rules
or special rules relatable to the post shall apply.
(ii) The agreement or contract may inter alia include
provisions in respect of conditions of service, pay and
allowances, discipline, contract period of appointment, notice
period for termination of appointment by either party and other
relevant matters.
(iii) The Government may, by order, prescribe the form of
such agreement or contract.
(b) A person appointed under sub-rule (a) shall not be regarded
as a member of the service, in which the post to which he is
appointed, is included and shall not be entitled by reason only of
such appointment, to any preferential right to any other
appointment in that or in any other service.‖
169.1. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that while the
Writ Petitioners were appointed on contract basis, such employment is
covered by Rule-4(a)(4) of the Rules, 1996. He would also submit that the
limitations spelt-out under Rule-9 did not apply to the Writ Petitioners
inasmuch as the Government has neither created any special provisions nor
have they adhered to any of the conditions which are mechanically mentioned
in the contract. Although the contract, under which the Writ Petitioners were
appointed, would state that the contract employees may be removed at any
time, admittedly, the Writ Petitioners, who are appointed in the years 1986,
1989, 1980, 1990, 1989 and 1990 respectively, were continued till date. This
long continuance itself would presuppose that there are clear vacancies but
the Government has not been kind enough to create regular vacancies and
evolve a method to regularize Writ Petitioners for the reasons best known to
them and with a view to unduly exploit their services. The aspect of
regularization is not an issue before this Court but he would contend that the
limitations indicated in Rule-9 do not apply, in which event, the Rules, 1996
itself would be applicable to the Writ Petitioners.
Submissions of the Respondents:
10. The Counter Affidavit has been filed by the Respondent No.1. It is
submitted that the Contract Supervisors are categorically divided into Grade-I
and Grade-II while maintaining the State share of 75% and the Central
Government share of 25% in the payment of their remuneration. It is stated
that there about 24,078 vacancies in different categories of Gazetted and
Non-gazetted posts; that a Notification was issued on 02.07.2013 by the
Regional Joint Directors for filling up of 1,117 posts of Grade-II Supervisors as
per the service rules and notifications; that specific guidelines were issued
vide Memo dated 02.07.2013 for the purpose of selection of Grade-II
Supervisors; that they shall be selected on zonal basis; that the Director of
Women & Child Welfare has also protected the Contract Supervisors who
17
have appeared in the examination in terms of the Notification and the Writ
Petitioners herein have not been qualified in the examination.
10.1. It is further submitted by the Respondents that after bifurcation of the
State, they were made to continue on the same terms and conditions as
before. It is specifically contended by the learned Counsel for the
Respondents firstly, that the Act 23 of 1984 is not applicable to the case of the
Writ Petitioners; and secondly, that the Rules promulgated by the State
Government in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309
of the Constitution, which are called the Andhra Pradesh State and
Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 are also not applicable to the Writ
Petitioners and therefore, the Petitioners can never get the benefit of
extension of age of superannuation in terms of the Amendment Act, 2022.
Issue:-
11. Having considered the submissions of either side, this Court is of the
opinion that the precise issue that falls for consideration before this Court is as
follows:
Whether the Writ Petitioners are entitled for the benefit of the
Amendment Act, 2022 (The Andhra Pradesh Public Employment
(Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2022)
and thereby, they are entitled to be continued in service under the
contract until they complete the age of 62 years?
Analysis:-
12. The relevant provisions of law, as projected by Sri J. Sudheer, learned
Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, have already been extracted hereinabove.
This Court has perused the various Clauses of Sub-Section (2) of Section 1 of
the Act 23 of 1984. This Court has also perused the definition of a
‗Government Employee’, as mentioned in Section 2(3) of Act 23 of 1984. This
Court has also perused Section 4 of Act 23 of 1984. This Court has already
18
noted the ‗Statement of Objects and Reasons’ for making an amendment with
regard to extension of age of superannuation vide Gazette Notification dated
14.02.2022.
13. The next Amendment made to Act 23 of 1984 Act was in the year 2014
with regard to the age of superannuation. The Government of Andhra Pradesh
had brought into effect the Act 4 of 2014 thereby, enhancing the age of
superannuation of the persons mentioned in Sub-Section (2) of Section 1 of
Act 23 of 1984 from 58 to 60 years. In the same sequence, the Government
of Andhra Pradesh has now brought into effect an amendment to the Act 1984
by enhancing the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years vide
Gazette Notification dated 14.02.2022.
14. This Court has also noted the contents of G.O.Ms.No.436, General
Administration (Services-D) dated 15.10.1996 (published in Andhra Pradesh
Gazette Part I and Extraordinary on 27.01.1997) with regard to the enacting
clause. The said G.O.Ms.No.436 is with regard to the Andhra Pradesh State
and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. It is stated in the enacting clause that
the said Rules have been promulgated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh
in exercise of the powers conferred by Proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India. Rule 4 deals with various categories of appointments
which are governed by Rules 1996. Clause (a) of Rule 4 of the Rules 1996
clearly stated that the appointment to any service, class or category shall be
by one or more methods indicated as may be specified in the special Rules
applicable to the relevant post.
15. One of the methods of appointments contemplated under Rule 4(a)(4) is
Contract/Agreement/Re-employment. Therefore, Rule 4(a)(4) recognizes that
the appointments made out of contract or agreement is also one of the
methods of appointment recognized by the Rules, 1996. This is further
supported by Rule 9 of the Rules, 1996. These rules, as stated earlier, have
been promulgated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of
powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
19
When it comes to the applicability of the statute governing the age of
superannuation, Clause – (iv) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 1 of Act 23 of
1984 (extracted supra), it is clearly stated therein that every other Officer or
Employee whose conditions of service are regulated by rules framed under
the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India shall also be governed by
the Act relating to this age of superannuation.
15.1. This Court, having noted the submissions of Sri J. Sudheer, learned
Counsel for the Writ Petitioners to the effect that the State Government has
not framed any special rules as contemplated under Rule-9 and that the
stereotype terms of contract were never adhered to by the State, and
therefore, the limitations, as spelt-out in Rule-9 of the Rules, 1996 do not
apply, this Court, having considered the same, is in agreement with the
learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners. This view is taken by the Court that
the limitations spelt-out in Rule-9 of the Rules, 1996 such as the terms of
contract have never been adhered to by the Government and therefore, the
State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 would apply to the Writ Petitioners
for the reason that whatever may be the stereotype terms of contract, the
admitted facts in this case, would itself indicate that the Government has not
adhered to such terms inasmuch as the Petitioners, who were appointed in
the years 1986, 1989, 1980, 1990, 1989 and 1990 respectively, were
continued in service without any break. They were even promoted from
Anganwadi Workers to Anganwadi Helpers and thereafter, as Contract
Supervisors. Therefore, this Court would hold that the Government has
neither framed any special rules nor has adhered to the terms in the
Contractual Agreement and had continued the Writ Petitioners as such for
several decades.
16. This apart, Clause – (i) of Sub Section (2) of Section – 1 of Act 23 of
1984 would cover persons appointed to public services and posts in
connection with the affairs of the State. Admittedly, the Writ Petitioners were
originally appointed as Anganwadi workers. After having worked in that post
20
for considerable length of time, they have been appointed to the higher post
i.e., as Contract Supervisors in the years 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2007
respectively and have been continuing as such. It is also stated that they
have been rendering similar services as that of their counterparts who are in
regular employment and the only difference is with regard to the payment of
salary and other service conditions inasmuch as the regular employees are
being paid regular wages while the Writ Petitioners were paid meager salaries
on the contract basis. Therefore, even on this score, it must be held that the
Writ Petitioners are persons appointed to public services and posts in
connection with the affairs of the State. It is an admitted fact that the Writ
Petitioners receive their salary from the Consolidated Fund of the State
Government as well as the Central Government. Article 266 of the
Constitution of India has defined the Consolidated Fund of the State to include
all revenues received by the Government of a State, all loans raised by that
Government by the issue of treasury bills, loans or ways and means advances
and all moneys received by that Government in repayment of loans shall form
one consolidated fund to be entitled ―the Consolidated Fund of the State‖.
Admittedly, 75% of the salary received by the Writ Petitioners is paid from out
of the Consolidated Fund of the State of Andhra Pradesh and 25% of it is
borne by the Union of India’s Consolidated Fund (Clause – (ii) of Sub-Section
(2) of Section – 1 of the Act 23 of 1984).
17. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ
Petitioners herein, as being contract employees, are governed by the Andhra
Pradesh State and Subordinate Rules, 1996. This Court has come to this
conclusion by taking into account the purport of Rule 4(a) and Rule 9 of the
said Rules. Once having held that the Writ Petitioners are governed by the
Rules, 1996, this Court is required to further hold that the Writ Petitioners are
entitled for the benefit of extension of age of superannuation in terms of the
Amendment Act, 2022 as they are covered under Clauses-(i), (ii) and (iv) of
Sub Section (2) of Section-1 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment
(Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984.
21
18. This opinion of this Court is fortified by the ratio laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Gujarat Vs. R.L. Keshav Lal : (1980) 4 SCC
653. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while deciding the question whether the
Panchayat Service constituted under the Panchayat Act is a civil service of the
State or not, had drawn distinction between the ‗defence service’ and ‗defence
post’ on one hand and ‗civil service’ and ‗civil post’ on the other hand. The
Hon’ble Apex Court held, by referring to the ratio held by the Constitution
Bench in the case of State of Assam Vs. Kanak Chandra Dutta : (1967) 1
SCR 679, that the true test for determination of the question whether a person
is holding a ‗civil post’ or is a member of the ‗civil service’ is the existence of a
relationship of master and servant between the State and the person holding a
post under it and that the existence of such relationship is dependent upon the
right of the State to select and appoint the holder of the post, its right to
suspend and dismiss him, its right to control the manner and method of his
doing the work and the payment by it of his wages and remuneration. Para
Nos.14 and 15 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Gujarat
Vs. R.L. Keshav Lal, are usefully extracted hereunder:
―14. The first question is whether the Panchayat
Service constituted under the Panchayats Act is a Civil
Service of the State. The expressions ―civil service‖ or
―civil post‖ are not formally defined. Entry 70 of List I of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution refers to Union
Public Services and all-India Services, and, Entry 41 of
List II of that Schedule refers to State public services. Part
XIV of the Constitution deals with service under the Union
and the States. In Article 309 of the Constitution, we find
reference to persons appointed to public services and
posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any
State. Article 310 of the Constitution distinguishes the
defence service from the civil service when it refers to
members of a ‗defence service or of a civil service’. But all
persons who are members of a defence service or of a
civil service of the Union or of an all-India service or
persons who hold any post connected with defence or any
civil post under the Union are treated as persons serving
the Union and every person who is a member of the civil
service of a State or holds any civil post under a State is
treated as a person serving a State. The factors which
govern the determination of the question whether a
22person holds a civil post or is a member of civil service
were considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court
in State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta [AIR 1967 SC
884 : (1967) 1 SCR 679 : (1968) 1 LLJ 288] and
Bachawat, J. speaking for the Bench observed thus:
―There is no formal definition of ‗post’ and ‗civil
post’. The sense in which they are used in the
Services Chapter of Part XIV of the Constitution is
indicated by their context and setting. A civil post is
distinguished in Article 310 from a post connected
with defence; it is a post on the civil as
distinguished from the defence side of the
administration, an employment in a civil capacity
under the Union or a State. See marginal note to
Article 311. In Article 311, a member of a civil
service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil
service of a Stateis mentioned separately, and a
civil post means a post not connected with defence
outside the regular civil services. A post is a service
or employment. A person holding a post under a
State is a person serving or employed under the
State. See the marginal notes to Articles 309, 310
and 311. The heading and the subheading of Part
XIV and Chapter I emphasise the element of
service. There is a relationship of master and
servant between the State and a person holding a
post under it. The existence of this relationship is
indicated by the State’s right to select and appoint
the holder of the post, its right to suspend and
dismiss him, its right to control the manner and
method of his doing the work and the payment by it
of his wages or remuneration. A relationship of
master and servant may be established by the
presence of all or some of these indicia in
conjunction with other circumstances and it is a
question of fact in each case whether there is such
a relation between the State and the alleged holder
of a post.‖
15. According to the above decision, the true test
for determination of the question whether a person is
holding a civil post or is a member of the civil service is
the existence of a relationship of master and servant
between the State and the person holding a post under it
and that the existence of such relationship is dependent
upon the right of the State to select and appoint the holder
of the post, its right to suspend and dismiss him, its right
to control the manner and method of his doing the work
and the payment by it of his wages and remuneration. It is
further held that the relationship of master and servant
23may be established by the presence of all or some of the
factors referred to above in conjunction with other
circumstances. Applying these tests, this Court held that a
Mauzadar in the Assam Valley who was engaged in the
work of collection of land revenue and other government
dues and in the performance of certain other special
duties was a person holding a civil post under the State.
Following the above decision in Superintendent of Post
Offices v. P.K. Rajamma [(1977) 3 SCC 94 : 1977 SCC
(L&S) 374 : (1977) 3 SCR 678] this Court held that
persons who were working as extra departmental agents
of the Posts and Telegraphs Department were persons
holding civil post.‖
19. This apart, it becomes necessary to consider the march of the law as it
evolved as regards the status of Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi
Helpers (AWHs). The Hon’ble Apex Court has drawn a clear distinction
between the status of the above employees (AWWs and AWHs) prior to the
enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009 and the National Food Security Act, 2013. In the case of Maniben
Maganbhai Bhariya Vs. District Development Officer, Dahod : (2022) 16
SCC 343, the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken judicial note of the march of law
from the case of Ameerbi up to Maniben‘s case (State of Karnataka and Ors.
Vs. Ameerbi and Ors. : (2007) 11 SCC 681). This distinction as brought out
by the Hon’ble Apex Court has a bearing on this case as well. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in Maniben‘s case, had also dealt with the plight of AWWs
and AWHs. Para Nos.24 to 27 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Maniben‘s case are usefully extracted hereunder:
―24. In view of the provisions of the 2013 Act and
Section 11 of the RTE Act, Anganwadi centres also
perform statutory duties. Therefore, even AWWs and
AWHs perform statutory duties under the said
enactments. The Anganwadi centres have, thus,
become an extended arm of the Government in view
of the enactment of the 2013 Act and the Rules framed
by the Government of Gujarat. The Anganwadi centres
have been established to give effect to the obligations
of the State defined under Article 47 of the
Constitution. It can be safely said that the posts of
AWWs and AWHs are statutory posts.
24
25. As far as the State of Gujarat is concerned, the
appointments of AWWs and AWHs are governed by the
said Rules. In view of the 2013 Act, AWWs and AWHs are
no longer a part of any temporary scheme of ICDS. It
cannot be said that the employment of AWWs and AWHs
has temporary status. In view of the changes brought
about by the 2013 Act and the aforesaid Rules framed
by the Government of Gujarat, the law laid down by
this Court in Ameerbi [State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi,
(2007) 11 SCC 681 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 975] will not
detain this Court any further from deciding the issue.
For the reasons stated above, the decision
in Ameerbi [State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi, (2007) 11
SCC 681 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 975] will not have any
bearing on the issue involved in these appeals.
26. AWWs and AWHs have been assigned all-
pervasive duties, which include identification of the
beneficiaries, cooking nutritious food, serving healthy
food to the beneficiaries, conducting pre-school for
the children of the age group of 3 to 6 years, and
making frequent home visits for various reasons.
Implementation of very important and innovative
provisions relating to children, pregnant women as
well as lactating mothers under the 2013 Act has been
entrusted to them. It is thus impossible to accept the
contention that the job assigned to AWWs and AWHs
is a part-time job. The Government Resolution dated
25-11-2019, which prescribes duties of AWWs and
AWHs, does not lay down that their job is a part-time
job. Considering the nature of duties specified thereunder,
it is full-time employment.
27. In the State of Gujarat, AWWs are being paid
monthly remuneration of only Rs 7800 and AWHs are
being paid monthly remuneration of only Rs 3950.
AWWs working in mini-Anganwadi centres are being
paid a sum of Rs 4400 per month. The important tasks
of providing food security to children in the age group
of 6 months to 6 years, pregnant women as well as
lactating mothers have been assigned to them. In
addition, there is a duty to render pre-school
education. For all this, they are being paid very
meagre remuneration and paltry benefits under an
insurance scheme of the Central Government. It is
high time that the Central Government and State
Governments take serious note of the plight of AWWs
and AWHs who are expected to render such important
services to the society.”
(emphasis supplied)
25
20. There is no second opinion about the fact that the decision rendered by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in Maniben‘s case is a game-changer for mitigating
the lives of AWWs and AWHs.
21. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has drawn the attention of this
Court to a clarification given by the Government vide Circular Memo
No.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV, dated 23.09.2022, which is to the
effect that the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation shall be
available only to persons as mentioned in Clauses (i) to (iv) in Sub Section (2)
of Section 1 of the Act 23 of 1984.
22. This Court has considered the text of Circular Memo dated 23.09.2022.
Having done so, at the outset, this Court opines that it is only an Executive
Order, and also that it is not contrary to Clauses (i) to (iv) and is in verbatim
the same as in Clauses (i) to (iv) of Sub Section (2) of Section 1 of Act 23 of
1984 and therefore, this Circular Memo would have no bearing to the facts of
this case.
23. In the opinion of this Court, there are also other cardinal attendant
factors which are required to be mentioned here. When the Government of
Andhra Pradesh has amended the Act 23 of 1984 on 14.03.2022 by bringing
into effect Act 1 of 2022, thereby, enhancing the age of superannuation from
60 to 62 years for the regular Government Employees, this Court had the
occasion to deal with a variety of situations relating to contractual work-force
working in Corporations, Cooperative Societies, Agencies, Authorities,
Universities, Teachers and Lecturers on contract etc., Therefore, this Court
had the occasion to come across nuances of interpretation with regard to the
applicability of benefit rendered by the Government with regard to the
extension of age of superannuation. During the course of the hearing of
several cases, this Court had posed a query to the Government to explain the
rationale behind limiting this extension of age of superannuation only to
Government Employees who are covered by the Andhra Pradesh State and
Subordinate Rules and not to others (contractual work-force) especially,
26
keeping in mind, the Statement of Objects and Reasons to the Amendment
Act, 2022 which clearly indicates that the average life expectancy compared to
the time of 2014, has now been increased to about 70 to 73 years. If this is
the logic, it cannot be stated that the life expectancy of the Regular
Government Employees had increased but the life expectancy of the contract
employees has not biologically increased. This Court is of the opinion that
such policy decisions that the Government takes cannot be arrived at
whimsically or fancifully and that it has to have a reason and sound logic.
When the Government lays down Statement of Objects and Reasons for
enhancement of age of superannuation that it is due to improvement in the
average life expectancy basing on the recommendation of the World Health
Organization, would the Government be entitled to limit this benefit for a group
or class of people and deprive the same benefit for other groups or classes
whimsically or fancifully? and, whether such conduct on the part of the
Government can stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or not?
The Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again raised issues of human
exploitation even by the State Authorities. Although the subject of minimum
time scale is not connected to the present case, the portrayal of the sordid
human conditions of employees serving the State under various contractual
schemes, has been voiced by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which this Court
deems it appropriate to usefully extract hereunder in the case of State of
Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh : (2017) 1 SCC 148:
―57. There is no room for any doubt that the
principle of ―equal pay for equal work‖ has emerged
from an interpretation of different provisions of the
Constitution. The principle has been expounded
through a large number of judgments rendered by this
Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The
same is binding on all the courts in India under Article
141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of the
principle have been summarised by us in para 42
hereinabove. The principle of ―equal pay for equal
work‖ has also been extended to temporary
employees (differently described as work-charge, daily
wage, casual, ad hoc, contractual, and the like). The
legal position, relating to temporary employees has
27been summarised by us, in para 44 hereinabove. The
above legal position which has been repeatedly
declared, is being reiterated by us yet again.
58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to
determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour.
An employee engaged for the same work cannot be
paid less than another who performs the same duties
and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State.
Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at
the very foundation of human dignity. Anyone, who is
compelled to work at a lesser wage does not do so
voluntarily. He does so to provide food and shelter
to his family, at the cost of his self-respect and
dignity, at the cost of his self-worth, and at the
cost of his integrity. For he knows that his
dependants would suffer immensely, if he does
not accept the lesser wage. Any act of paying less
wages as compared to others similarly situate
constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement,
emerging out of a domineering position.
Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.
59. We would also like to extract herein Article
7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, 1966. The same is reproduced
below:
―7. The States Parties to the present Covenant
recognise the right of everyone to the
enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of
work which ensure, in particular:
(a) Remuneration which provides all
workers, as a minimum, with:
(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration
for work of equal value without
distinction of any kind, in particular
women being guaranteed conditions of
work not inferior to those enjoyed by
men, with equal pay for equal work;
(ii) A decent living for themselves and
their families in accordance with the
provisions of the present Covenant;
(b) Safe and healthy working conditions;
28
(c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be
promoted in his employment to an appropriate
higher level, subject to no considerations other
than those of seniority and competence;
(d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of
working hours and periodic holidays with pay,
as well as remuneration for public holidays.‖
(emphasis supplied)
India is a signatory to the above Covenant having
ratified the same on 10-4-1979. There is no escape
from the above obligation in view of different
provisions of the Constitution referred to above, and in
view of the law declared by this Court under Article
141 of the Constitution of India, the principle of ―equal
pay for equal work‖ constitutes a clear and
unambiguous right and is vested in every employee–
whether engaged on regular or temporary basis.‖
(emphasis supplied)
24. This Court cannot be oblivious to the recent Judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Ors. : 2024 SCC Online SC
3826. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Government has resorted to
selective application of Umadevi’s case, thereby distorting the spirit of the
said Judgment effectively, and weaponising against employees who have
rendered the indispensible services over decades. The paragraphs 22 to 27
of the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are usefully
extracted hereunder:
“22. The pervasive misuse of temporary
employment contracts, as exemplified in this case,
reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely
affects workers’ rights and job security. In the
private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to
an increase in precarious employment
arrangements, often characterized by lack of
benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such
practices have been criticized for exploiting workers
and undermining labour standards. Government
institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles
of fairness and justice, bear an even greater
responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment
29practices. When public sector entities engage in
misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors
the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy
but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode
public trust in governmental operations.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO),
of which India is a founding member, has consistently
advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment
of workers. The ILO’s Multinational Enterprises
Declaration6 encourages companies to provide stable
employment and to observe obligations concerning
employment stability and social security. It emphasizes
that enterprises should assume a leading role in
promoting employment security, particularly in contexts
where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term
unemployment.
24. The landmark judgment of the United State in
the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation7 serves as
a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating
the consequences of misclassifying employees to
circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft
classified certain workers as independent contractors,
thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these
workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were
entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The
Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly
adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or
independent contractors as a means of avoiding
payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their
profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the
nature of the work performed, rather than the label
assigned to the worker, should determine employment
status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It
highlights the judiciary’s role in rectifying such
misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair
treatment.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary
employees, particularly in government institutions,
often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While
the foundational purpose of temporary contracts
may have been to address short-term or seasonal
needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism
to evade long-term obligations owed to employees.
These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees
engaged for work that is essential, recurring,
30and integral to the functioning of an institution
are often labeled as “temporary” or
“contractual,” even when their roles mirror
those of regular employees. Such
misclassification deprives workers of the
dignity, security, and benefits that regular
employees are entitled to, despite performing
identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees
are frequently dismissed without cause or
notice, as seen in the present case. This
practice undermines the principles of natural
justice and subjects workers to a state of
constant insecurity, regardless of the quality
or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary
employees often find themselves excluded
from opportunities for skill development,
promotions, or incremental pay raises. They
remain stagnant in their roles, creating a
systemic disparity between them and their
regular counterparts, despite their
contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions
increasingly resort to outsourcing roles
performed by temporary employees,
effectively replacing one set of exploited
workers with another. This practice not only
perpetuates exploitation but also
demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the
obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and
Benefits: Temporary employees are often
denied fundamental benefits such as pension,
provident fund, health insurance, and paid
leave, even when their tenure spans decades.
This lack of social security subjects them and
their families to undue hardship, especially in
cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen
circumstances.”
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra)
sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and
ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles,
it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted
or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving
employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between
31
―illegal‖ and ―irregular‖ appointments. It categorically held
that employees in irregular appointments, who were
engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served
continuously for more than ten years, should be
considered for regularization as a one-time measure.
However, the laudable intent of the judgment is
being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to
indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even
in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but
merely lack adherence to procedural formalities.
Government departments often cite the judgment
in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to
regularization exists for temporary employees,
overlooking the judgment’s explicit acknowledgment
of cases where regularization is appropriate. This
selective application distorts the judgment’s spirit
and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against
employees who have rendered indispensable
services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our
opinion, it is imperative for government departments
to lead by example in providing fair and stable
employment. Engaging workers on a temporary
basis for extended periods, especially when their
roles are integral to the organization’s functioning,
not only contravenes international labour standards
but also exposes the organization to legal
challenges and undermines employee morale. By
ensuring fair employment practices, government
institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary
litigation, promote job security, and uphold the
principles of justice and fairness that they are meant
to embody. This approach aligns with international
standards and sets a positive precedent for the
private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the
overall betterment of labour practices in the
country.”
(emphasis supplied)
25. Having considered the above analysis, this Court holds that the Writ
Petitioners are entitled for the benefit of enhancement of age of
superannuation from 58 to 60 years (Act 4 of 2014) and from 60 years to 62
years (Act 1 of 2022). Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed. The Writ
Petitioners are entitled to the benefit of enhancement of age of
32
superannuation. Therefore, they shall be continued in service as Contract
Supervisors until they complete the age of 62 years. No order as to costs.
26. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
_________________________________
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
Dt: 05.06.2025
Vns
Note: L.R Copy marked.