Allowed

K.Chenagamma v. The State of a. P

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Dec 2019WP/46853/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the refusal to regularize the petitioner's service. Directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's case for regularization if she possesses requisite qualifications, relying on a batch of related writ petitions and umadevi judgment.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's case for regularization if she is otherwise eligible to the said post.

K.Chenagamma Vs The State of a. P — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶2

Writ Petition No.46853 of 2018

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed “to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not regularizing the petitioner’s service as an attender and not granting all the consequential benefits, as illegal and arbitrary.”

¶5

Case of the petitioner is that, she was selected and appointed as attender on NMR basis vide proceedings dated 17.06.1991 of the 2^nd respondent; but the respondents 2 and 3 did not take any steps for regularizing her service; she made a representation dated 30.05.2007 to the 2^nd respondent to consider her case for appointment as an Attender in the available vacancy post reserved for SC category; the 2^nd respondent addressed a letter dated 30.06.2015 to the Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Higher Education Department to permit the University to regularize the services of the petitioner by duly relaxing the age and qualification; she came to know that the services of B.Ammanni and Smt. Leelavathi, who were appointed subsequent to the petitioner, were regularized; as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi¹ ’, the petitioner is entitled for regularization of service; as the same is not done, present writ petition is filed.

¶6

When the matter is taken up for admission, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent submits that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in WP No.19361 of 2018 & batch. The said cases were disposed of directing the respondents therein to regularize the services

¶7

1 (2006)4 SCC 1

¶8

of the petitioners therein, subject to the petitioners possessing other requisite qualifications.

¶9

In view of the same, the writ petition is also allowed in terms of the judgment in WP No.19361 of 2018 & batch, directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible to the said post. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶10

__________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶11

Date: 18.12.2019 BSS

¶12

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶13

Writ Petition No.46853 of 2018

¶14

¶15

Date: 18.12.2019

¶16

BSS

K.Chenagamma v. The State of a. P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Chenagamma v. The State of a. P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Ramakrishna Rao, Vs The A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd.

P Raghuram Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

H Govindu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Gandhi Babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. K.Siva Kumari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Mallem Konda Reddy Vs State of Ap