Disposed

P.Lakshmi Narasamma, v. the STAThe State of Andhra Pradesh Te of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Dec 2019WP/18103/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking declaration of illegality regarding non-implementation of salary orders for a sweeper. Instead of merits, the Court directed the Municipality to dispose of the petitioner's pending representation within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent Municipality to dispose the petitioner's pending representation on salary and regularization within four weeks from receiving a copy of the order.

P.Lakshmi Narasamma, Vs the STAThe… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYALAKSHMI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.18103 OF 2019

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed “to declare the action of the respondents in not considering petitioner representation, dated 06.02.219 in not implementation of the order dated 19.09.2018 passed in W.P.No.20947 of 2015 in respect of petitioner salary attached to the post of Sweeper in terms of G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 27.08.2018, G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 23.07.1997 and subsequent G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 19.02.2019, as illegal, arbitrary”

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri N.Raga Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent No.3.

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that, she was appointed as a part-time sweeper in the 3^rd respondent Municipality on 19.01.1992; on receipt of G.O.(P) No.112, dated 23.07.1997 to process the cases of absorption/regularization of services of Part-time Employees in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994, the 3^rd respondent Municipality have furnished the information by letter dated 27.08.1998 to the 2^nd respondent and that the 2^nd respondent has forwarded the 3^rd respondent proposal to the 1^st respondent for regularization of services in respect of similarly situated persons, who are working in the 3^rd respondent Municipality; despite the said proposal, the first respondent failed to take any action; the 3^rd respondent again sent reminder

¶7

proposals to the 2^nd respondent on 28.04.2008, requesting to regularize the service of similarly situated employees, who have completed 10 years of service in the 3^rd respondent Municipality; aggrieved by the inaction of respondents, she filed petition O.A.No. 2767 of 2015 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad seeking a direction to the respondents to consider her representation and regularize her service, but said O.A. was dismissed on 10.06.2015; aggrieved by the said order, she filed W.P.No.20947 of 2015 and on 19.9.2018 the same was disposed of by this Court, directing the respondents herein to consider the representations of the petitioner; the petitioner also filed a representation on 06.02.2019 with a request to pay the salary attached to the post in terms of G.O. 142, dated 27.08.2018 and other G.Os, but no action has been taken by the respondents. Hence, the writ petition.

¶8

In view of the facts and circumstances, without going into merits of the case, as the petitioner filed a fresh representation on 06.02.2019 before the 3^rd respondent, and if the same is still pending, the 3^rd respondent is directed to dispose the same strictly, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of reaccept of a copy of this order.

¶9

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶11

Date: 02.12.2019 PNR

¶12

_______________________________ JUSTICE K.VIJAYALAKSHMI

¶13

¶14

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYALAKSHMI

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.18103 OF 2019

¶16

Date: 02.12.2019

¶17

PNR

P.Lakshmi Narasamma, v. the STAThe State of Andhra Pradesh Te of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Lakshmi Narasamma, v. the STAThe State of Andhra Pradesh Te of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Appala Naidu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bollapalli Yesupadam Vs Chebrolu Veeranjaneyulu

Adapa Jhansi Lakshmi Died Vs Parvathareddy Sundaramani Balamani Kumari

C v Ramana Vs the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation

E. Neelavathi, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mediboina Sreedhar Reddy, Guntur Dist Vs Director of Higher Education, Hyd and 3 Ot