IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1475 of 2009 Between: A.P. Housing Board, rep., by its Vice Chairman & Housing Commissioner, Gruhakalpa, M.J. Road, Hyderabad & another. … Appellants And M. Yeshoda & others. … Respondents. Counsel for the Appellants : Sri V. Narasimha Goud for Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao Counsel for respondents 7-92: Sri G. Vidyasagar This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1475 of 2009 JUDGMENT:- (Per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Feeling aggrieved by order dated 03.09.2009 in WPMP.No.5876 of 2009 and WVMP.No.1841 of 2009 in WP.No.8391 of 2005, the present writ appeal is filed. The respondents herein, who are the Class IV employees and who are retrenched by the appellants, filed Writ Petition No.8391 of 2005. This Court granted interim direction for their continuance. For the last four years, on the strength of the said direction, the respondents are being continued. During the pendency of the writ petition, pay scales for Class IV employees were revised by appellant No.1 Board. The respondents therefore filed WPMP.No.5876 of 2009 for extending the pay scales to them as well. This Court by order dated 19.03.2009 granted interim direction to that effect. The appellants filed WVMP.No.1841 of 2009 seeking vacation of the said order. The learned Single Judge, having considered the said application, dismissed the same. Having heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the view that the reasons given by the learned Single Judge for dismissing the vacate stay application do not call for any interference. Admittedly, revised pay scales have been extended to the persons who are situated similar to the respondents and therefore the learned Single Judge held that there is no justification to discriminate the respondents against such similarly situated persons. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order under appeal. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 25.01.2010 ES