The High Court of Andhra Pradesh directs authorities to expeditiously consider representations for salary payment where employees worked pursuant to interim court orders, reaffirming established administrative law. The judgment upholds prior precedent without overruling, and is binding authority for similarly situated petitioners in the public employment sector.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/20344/2024 of S KRISHNA SWAMY Vs THE STATE OF AP |
| CNR | APHC010391582024 |
| Date of Registration | 12-09-2024 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether the refusal to consider representations for salary payment for work performed under interim orders is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of constitutional rights. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that when employees have continued in service and rendered work exclusively under the protection of interim court orders, authorities are legally obliged to consider their representations seeking salary for the said period. Failure to process such representations is arbitrary and not in consonance with constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 16, and 21. The administrative process cannot be stalled where service was rendered pursuant to lawful court directions. The decision does not itself grant the salary but mandates expeditious adjudication of the salary claims as per law and procedure. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners were public school teachers continued in service beyond their original retirement age due to interim orders extending the age of superannuation under Government Order. Their earlier writ petitions, seeking permanent extension, were ultimately dismissed, but they had rendered service during the period of interim relief. Representations for salary for that period remained pending. The administration did not process these until directed by this judgment. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tribunals dealing with similar service/administrative law disputes |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Court has clarified that where employees continue to work solely under interim orders, their salary-related representations for that period must be considered expeditiously.
- The judgment affirms that administrative delay or indecision in processing such claims is contrary to the articles of the Constitution relating to equality, non-arbitrariness, and right to livelihood.
- Lawyers representing employees protected by interim orders may cite this as binding authority to compel authorities to process salary claims, even where the main writ is eventually dismissed.
- The decision does not directly order salary payment but mandates prompt administrative consideration and decision on such claims.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court observed that the petitioners continued in service exclusively under protection of interim orders passed in earlier writ petitions relating to enhancement of superannuation age.
- The writ petitions challenging non-extension of retirement age were dismissed, ending the petitioners’ claim to further employment, but did not address salary for work rendered during the interim period.
- The Court noted the administration’s acknowledgment of receipt of representations and its internal communications seeking direction from higher authorities, establishing that no final decision had yet been taken on the salary issue.
- Holding that continued pendency of representations constitutes arbitrary administrative action, the Court required the authorities to process and decide these claims within three months, thereby upholding constitutional and administrative law principles.
- The Court refrained from granting direct relief (salary payment), instead adhering to the established distinction between judicial review of administrative inaction and substitution of administrative decision-making.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Sought mandamus for prompt consideration of salary claims for the period served under interim court protection.
- Asserted that non-consideration of written representations is arbitrary and discriminatory, violating constitutional rights.
- Highlighted repeated written requests (with specific dates) for salary payment during the disputed period.
Respondent:
- Acknowledged receipt of petitioners’ representations.
- Confirmed that the matter was referred by the relevant administrative society to the State for decision.
- Indicated that action is pending awaiting further instructions from higher government authority.
Factual Background
The petitioners, employed as teachers and lecturers in state-run educational institutions, retired following their initial superannuation dates. Relying on a government order that raised the retirement age, they obtained interim court orders allowing continued service while legal challenges proceeded. Ultimately, their writ petitions for permanent extension were dismissed and their services ended. They subsequently submitted multiple written representations seeking payment of salary for the period they worked under interim relief, but the authorities did not adjudicate these claims, prompting this writ petition.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court considered the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FR & LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022, relating to enhancement of superannuation age.
- Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, invoking the writ jurisdiction for enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21.
- The judgment interprets the government’s duty to administratively process claims made under the backdrop of interim judicial protection, noting such duties’ constitutional foundation.
- No statutes were “read down” or narrowly interpreted; rather, the administration of existing law was scrutinized for arbitrariness and failure to perform statutory duty.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion is recorded in this single-judge bench decision.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court specifically directed that pending representations must be disposed of within a fixed time frame (three months), reinforcing administrative accountability in post-litigation salary claims.
- Miscellaneous petitions pending in the writ were ordered to be closed as a sequitur.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms existing principles regarding administrative obligations to consider representations and to avoid arbitrary inaction, in line with the right to equality and non-arbitrariness.