IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 1299 of 1999 Between: 1 K.V.Narayana S/o.Veeraiah Sri Gorla Hanimi Reddy Mettu CHina Malla Reddy college, Guntur--4. 2 K.Satyanarayana Reddy S/o.K.Gangi Reddy Sri Gorla Hanimi Reddy Mettu CHina Malla Reddy college, Guntur--4. 3 K.Rama Krishna Reddy S/o.Hanimi Reddy Sri Gorla Hanimi Reddy Mettu CHina Malla Reddy college, Guntur--4. 4 A.Sarojini Devi W/o C.jaya Rao Sri Gorla Hanimi Reddy Mettu CHina Malla Reddy college, Guntur--4. 5 Y.Jaya Sankara Prasad S/o.Seetha Ramaiah Sri Gorla Hanimi Reddy Mettu CHina Malla Reddy college, Guntur--4. 6 K.Seetha Ram Reddy S/o.Rami Reddy Sri Gorla Hanimi Reddy Mettu CHina Malla Reddy college, Guntur--4. 7 D.Venkata Subbaiah S/o.Venkataiah Sri Gorla Hanimi Reddy Mettu CHina Malla Reddy college, Guntur--4. 8 G.Sarojini W/o.Venkata Reddy Sri Gorla Hanimi Reddy Mettu CHina Malla Reddy college, Guntur--4. 9 M.Sanjeeva Reddy S/o.Malla Reddy Sri Gorla Hanimi Reddy Mettu CHina Malla Reddy college, Guntur--4. 10 V.V.Subba Rami Reddy S/o.Venkateswarulu Sri Gorla Hanimi Reddy Mettu Chinna Malla Reddy College, Guntur-- 4. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The state of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Secretary Education Department, Secretarit , Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Intermediate Education Nampally , Hyderabad. 3 Sri Gorla Hanimi Reddy Mettu Chinna Malla Reddy College, Rep by its Principal Guntur. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to May be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents. a) In not counting the service of the petitioner with effect from the date of their joining and the service rendered by them till their posts were admitted into grant in aid for the purpose of fixation of pay scale , and b) In not extending the Automatic advancement Scheme to the petitioners as illegal , arbitrary,violation of Equal pay for equal work, in violation of Principal of Natural Justice and in Violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to count the service of the petitioners with effect from the date of their joining and the service rendered by them till their posts admitted into grant in aid for the purpose of fixation of scale and revise the scale of pay and also to extend the benefits of Automatic Advancement Scheme and pass such further other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.PADMANABHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 1491 of 1999 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.PADMANABHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.1299 and 1491 of 1999 COMMON ORDER: The grievance of the petitioners, in short, is that their services from the date of their initial appointment in the early 1980’s should be taken into consideration for computing the benefits under the automatic advancement scheme. The petitioners, lecturers in the 3rd respondent – college, were working in unaided posts hitherto. All the posts were admitted to grant-in-aid on 12.7.1990 subsequent to which their services were taken into consideration for the purpose of extending to them all the benefits to which they were entitled to. Their grievance is that the service rendered by them before the posts were admitted to grant-in- aid should also be taken into consideration for being extended the benefits under the automatic advancement scheme. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, reference is made to Act 26 of 2006 whereunder claims of employees of private aided colleges for release of grant-in-aid by counting the increments earned by them prior to the date of admission of posts to grant-in-aid stands extinguished from the date of commencement of the Act. Act 26 of 2006 is deemed to have come to into force with effect from 10.1.1980. In the light of Act 26 of 2006, the relief sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. Leaving it open to the petitioners, if they are so aggrieved, to challenge the vires of the said Act, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed since the relief claimed, if granted, would be in violation of Act 26 of 2006. The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. __________ 2-4-2008 asp