Disposed

K Srinivasula Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Jul 2022WA/560/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged a single Judge's order relegating the appellant to the alternative remedy of appeal in a termination case. The High Court extended the interim stay order during the pendency of the petition and directed the filing of an appeal.

What did the court decide?

The interim order of stay was continued till the filing of an appeal. The appellant was directed to file an appeal before the appellate authority with a prayer for interim relief within ten days.

K Srinivasula Reddy Vs The State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶3

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU

¶5

WRIT APPEAL No.560 of 2022

¶6

(Through physical mode)

¶7

K. Srinivasula Reddy, S/o. Konda Reddy, age 46 years, Field Assistant (FTE Under Termination), Gangarapuvandlapally Grampanchayat, Chakrayapeta Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶8

.. Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayatraj and Rural Development, Velagapudi, Amaravathi and others.

¶11

.. Respondents

¶12

Counsel for the appellant : Mr. V. Mallik,

¶13

for Ms. B. Geeta

¶14

Counsel for respondent Nos.1&2 : GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Dev. Counsel for respondent Nos.3&4 : Mr. M.S.R. Chandra Murthy Counsel for respondent No.5 : Ms. B.V. Aparna Lakshmi

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶16

Dt: 04.07.2022

¶17

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

¶18

This writ appeal would call in question the order dated 07.02.2022

¶19

passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.No.2244 of 2020.

¶20

The aforesaid writ petition was preferred by the appellant herein challenging the proceedings dated 03.01.2020 issued by the third respondent, terminating his services as Field Assistant (FTE), Gangarapuvandlapally Gram Panchayat. Having observed that as against the impugned proceedings, the appellant/writ petitioner has a remedy of appeal

¶21

¶22

before the District Collector, the learned single Judge has disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the appellant/writ petitioner to prefer an appeal within two weeks from the date of the order and directing the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the said appeal strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

¶23

Though various grounds have been urged in the grounds of appeal concerning merits of the matter, in the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner would submit that the appellant/writ petitioner will avail the alternative remedy of appeal as observed by the learned single Judge. Learned counsel would, however, submit that an interim order of stay was in operation during pendency of the writ petition and while relegating the appellant/writ petitioner to the remedy of appeal, the learned single Judge ought to have extended the said interim order till filing of the appeal by the appellant/writ petitioner, instead of vacating the same without assigning any reasons.

¶24

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that an interim order was in operation in favour of the appellant/ writ petitioner throughout the pendency of the writ petition, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ appeal with the following directions:

¶25

The appellant/writ petitioner shall file an appeal before the appellate authority along with an application for grant of interim relief, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such filing, the appellate authority shall pass appropriate orders on the prayer for interim relief on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of ten days thereafter. Till such time, the interim order of stay, which was granted

¶26

¶27

by the writ Court and was in operation during pendency of the writ petition, shall continue.

¶28

Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶29

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ

¶30

D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J

¶31

IBL

K Srinivasula Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Srinivasula Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Perarapu Satyanarayana Vs the State of Ap

Bejjipuram Swami Naidu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Vs K.Rajendra Prasad

Animal Rescue Organization Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bollini Prasad Naidu, Vs The state of A.P.

Kuchibhotla Srivatsa Vs State of Andhra Pradesh