IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L . NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.454 OF 2004 DATED:18.11.2010 Between: S. Doraswami Naidu … Petitioner And Sri Venkateswara University Rep. by its Registrar Tirupati, Chittoor District and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L . NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.454 OF 2004 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Teacher on 13.7.1995 by Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, initially for a period a period of eighty-nine (89) days and his salary was fixed as Rs.900/- (Rupees nine hundred only) per month. He was posted in the University Junior College. It was mentioned that he shall be under obligation to work in the Junior College as well as in the High School maintained by the University. The petitioner stated that he is continuing on the same terms in the past one-and-a-half decades with marginal increase of emoluments. He is seeking the relief in the form of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay regular time scale to him on par with the employees working in identical posts. The respondents filed a counter affidavit opposing the Writ Petition. It is admitted that the petitioner is being continued as a Teacher on contract basis since 1995. According to them, there is a ban imposed by the Government on filling up of existing vacancies and as and when the ban is lifted, the case of the petitioner will also be considered. Heard Sri Jagadish Chandra Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – University. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is functioning as a Teacher since 1995. He is discharging the same functions as any other Physical Education Teacher appointed on selection, on regular basis. The very fact that he is in service for the past one-and-a-half decades disclosed that the arrangement in appointing him is not either temporary or ad hoc in nature. The unfortunate ban imposed by the Government on appointment of teachers in the Universities has come in the way of the respondents in filling up the posts on regular basis. The petitioner would certainly have taken the chance for being selected in case recruitment had taken place. Whatever be the justification for the respondents in not filling up the posts on regular basis, they are not at all justified in denying him minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner. When the persons who are discharging the same functions are being paid not only the pay scale, but also allowances, which are in no way comparable to the paltry emoluments paid to the petitioner, there is no reason why the petitioner should be denied at least the minimum scale of pay. Hence, this Writ Petition is partly allowed directing that the respondents shall pay the minimum of the pay scale for the Physical Education Teacher as salary to the petitioner with effect from December, 2010. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 18.11.2010 bnr