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 WOM EN

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 C HILD 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 DEVE LOPMENT 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

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3328]

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 MUNE SWARARAO, 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 Y EARS, 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 WELF ARE, 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 D IRECTOR, 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.‖

16

9.1. 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

22

person 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

23

may 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

27

been 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

29

practices. 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

Declaration

6

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 Corporation

7

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,

30

and integral to the functioning of an institution

are often labeled as “temporary” or

“contractual,” even when their roles mirror

those of regular employe es. 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 als o

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.