Sri Devi Venkata. Subramanyam, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 1073 AP

             HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATI

                MAIN CASE No: W.P.No.6620 of 2020
                         PROCEEDING SHEET


Sl.                                                                         OFFICE
      DATE        ORDER
No                                                                          NOTE.
03. 28.02.2022    RNT,J

                         Heard      Sri    T.S.      Rayalu,   learned
                  counsel representing Sri W.B. Srinivas,
                  learned counsel for the petitioner.                          .

                         This petition has been filed for a Writ
                  of Mandamus directing the respondent

Nos.2 to 4 to extend the minimum time- scale of Attender to the petitioner with all consequential monetary benefits.

Inspite of the time been granted, counter-affidavit has not been filed by the respondents.

Learned Government Pleader for Endowments (AP) representing respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned standing counsel representing respondent No.4 are granted six weeks further time to file counter-affidavits.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh [(2017) 1 SCC 148], the petitioner is entitled for grant of the minimum time-scale of pay of Attender as is payable to the regular employees attached to that post performing the same duties. In this aspect he further submitted that in one writ petition viz., W.P.No.31926 of 2016 similarly situated person was granted the same benefit and the application for vacation of the interim order passed therein was rejected on 20.07.2017 vide W.V.M.P.No.62 of 2017. He further submits that the petitioner's case was

recommended by the respondent No.4 to the respondent No.3 on 24.09.2016 itself pursuant to the petitioner's representation to consider the matter and granting of minimum pay scale to the post of Attender to the petitioner but inspite of lapse of more than five years, no decision has yet been taken by the competent authority.

In view of the afore-said, as an interim measure, it is provided that the 3rd respondent shall decide the petitioner's representation considering the recommendation dated 24.09.2016, by a reasoned and speaking order and also taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) in particular paragraph 54 thereof, within a period of three weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before the said authority along with a fresh representation and copy of judgment in Jagjit Singh (supra). If the respondent No.3 finds that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit, the same shall be given and if it is found that the petitioner is not so entitled, the reasons thereof shall be stated in the order as also in the counter-affidavit.

The copy of the decision so taken shall be annexed with the counter-affidavit.

List after six (06) weeks.

________ RNT,J Vjl