Disposed

E. Sunil, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Apr 2023WP/13183/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging termination without subjecting it to merit-based adjudication, directing the District Collector to decide the pending appeal expeditiously within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of by directing the 2nd respondent (District Collector) to pass appropriate orders on the pending appeal within eight weeks.

E. Sunil, Vs The State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶5

1-
&
o

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 13183 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

E. Sunil, S/o. E. Hanumanna, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Field Assistant, R/o. Gangavaram Gram Panchayat, Beluguppa Mandal, Anantapuram District;

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal, Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector, Anantapuram, Anantapuram District.

¶13

The Project Director, District Water Management, Corporation, Anantapuram, Anantapuram District

¶14

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Mandal Praja Parishad, Beluguppa Mandal, Anantapuram District.

¶15

The Joint Secretary, Center for Development Studies, A.P. ARD AMR-AP ARD Campus, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Issue a Writ, order Or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in removing the petitioner on temporarily out of contract by his proceedings in Rc.No.141/2013/NREGS.SA, dated 27-06-2014, without giving any opportunity, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice, and consequently set aside the same.

¶18

r.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 17302 OF 2015)

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the proceedings Rc.No.141/2013/NREGS.SA, dated 27-06-2014 issued by the 3rd respondent by continuing the petitioner as afield Assistant in Gangavaram Village, Beluguppa Mandal, Anantapuramu District, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶20

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI. K SRINIVAS

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents 1&2; GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV Coun!» J" SRI M.S.R. CHANDRA MURTHY, SC FOR DWMA MMruiv.-?’® Respondents; SRI G. VENKATA REDDY, SC FOR GRAM rANCrlAYAT

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent 5: -

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶26

Writ Petition No, 13183 of 2015

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

« 4 This writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶29

“....to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of writ ofmandamus declaring the action of the respondent in removing the petitioner on temporarily out of contract by his proceedings in Rc.No. 141/2013/NREGS.SA, dated 27.06.2014, without gv/ng any opportunity is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass...."

¶30

2. The present writ petition is filed challenging the termination orders dated 27.06.2014 on the ground that the petitioner was terminated without giving any notice or any opportunity of hearing.

¶31

When the matter is posted today, the learned Standing Counsel Mr. M.S.R. Chandra Murthy, has submitted that after filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has filed an appeal to the District Collector as per 43 (C) of Cir.No.666/EGS(P)/2012, dated 08.01.2013, vide e-office file No.413281 and the same is pending for enquiry before ths District Collector-2"d respondent.

¶32

¶33

¶34

In view of the same, this Court, instead of going into the merits of the case, feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, by directing the 2”^ respondent to pass appropriate orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner vide e-office filed No.413281, pending before him, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. There shall be

¶36

no order as to costs.

¶37

Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, in this Writ Petition

shall stand closed.

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- P.U.V. BHASKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶42

SECTION OFFICER

¶43

¶44

The Principal, Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department State of Andhra

¶45

Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶46

The District Collector, Anantapuram, Anantapuram District

¶47

The Project Director, District Water Management, Corporation, Anantapuram Anantapuram District

¶48

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Mandal Praja Parishad,

¶49

Beluguppa Mandal, Anantapuram District.

¶50

The Joint Secretary, Center for Development Studies, A.P. ARD AMR-AP

¶51

ARD Campus, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.

¶52

One CC to Sri. K Srinivas Advocate [OPUC]

¶53

''' Prert«?’tr^?lT?'’ ’’’I** * •’“X De.* High Court of Andhra ridUcsn. [\JU IJ

¶54

1. One CC to Sri. M.S.R. Chandra Murthy, SC for DWMA [OPUC]

¶55

1. One CC to Sri. G. Venkata Reddy, SC for Gram Panchayat [OPUC]

10.Two CD Copies

Sdkr

MSR

HIGH COURT

DATED:19/04/2023

o«SEr,2on J
. Current Section

¶62

ORDER

¶63

WP.No.13183 of 2015

¶64

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

E. Sunil, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E. Sunil, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

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

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Vs Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited

S.Kamesh, S/o.S.Seshaiah, aged 28 years, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Principal secretary

Vajram Polymers Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Liberty General Insurance Ltd. Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kuruva Lingamaiah Vs G Sai Prasad,I.a.S

K. Murali Mohan Rao, S/o. late Karrothu Krishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its