Disposed

Marturi Sailaja v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC2 May 2022WP/13087/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge heard a writ petition challenging a transfer order due to district reorganization. The court directed the authority to expeditiously consider the petitioner's representations.

What did the court decide?

Directive to the respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the petitioner's representations dated 06.04.2022 and 26.04.2022 expeditiously within eight weeks.

Marturi Sailaja Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 13087 OF 2022

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II for the respondents.

¶5

The writ petition is filed by the petitioner against the action of the 2^nd respondent for issuing the proceedings in E1/COE-15021/79/2022, dated 03.04.2022 and consequential proceedings of the 3^rd respondent in Rc.No.B1/E-452470/2022 dated 04.04.2022 relieving the petitioner to the office of the respondent No.4.

¶6

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that initially she was appointed on compassionate grounds as an Office Subordinate/Attender in the office of the respondent No.3 in the place of her deceased husband. The petitioner has been working in the office of the respondent No.3 from 15.03.2014 to till date. While so, due to formation of the new Districts in the State of Andhra Pradesh, suddenly, the respondent No.2 issued proceedings in E1/COE-15021/79/2022, dated 03.04.2022 relieving and allocating the petitioner to join the office of the respondent No.4.

¶7

The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is having college going daughter and at this stage, the transfer of the petitioner would cause hardship to her daughter’s studies.

¶8

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services-II submits that the transfer of the petitioner is on administrative grounds and due to the formation of additional districts in the state of Andhra Pradesh, the re-shuffling was taken place. Consequentially, the petitioner was transferred under the impugned proceedings purely on administrative grounds. But so far as the representation of the petitioner is concerned, the

¶9

¶10

learned Government Pleader submits that the same can be dealt with by the respondent No.2 by following the due process.

¶11

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the respondent No.2 is directed to consider and dispose of the representations of the petitioner dated 06.04.2022 and 26.04.2022 strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶12

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also

¶14

stand closed.

¶15

______________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

¶16

May 02, 2022 P K R

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

¶19

216

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO. 13087 OF 2022

¶21

May 02, 2022

¶22

P K R

Marturi Sailaja v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marturi Sailaja 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

P Srinivas Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Sambi Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gedela Satyanarayana Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kakarla Krishnaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chelluri Venkata Maruthi Jagannadha Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

L.Ranga Reddy, Vs State of A.P.