Disposed

Karri Shyamala v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Feb 2023WP/2781/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In writ petition No. 2781 of 2023, the petitioner prayed for compassionate appointment. The High Court, without deciding merits, allowed the petition by directing respondents to accept a fresh representation within 10 days and decide within 4 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Permitted petitioner to submit a fresh representation within 10 days; respondents directed to consider it and pass orders within 4 weeks.

Karri Shyamala Vs the State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

Is '

¶5

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 2781 OF 2023

¶9

Between:

¶10

Karri Shyamala, W/o; Karri Tirumala Rao, D/o. Malla Koteswara Rao, aged 39 years, R/o. H. No. 9-9-28/7, Sivajipalem, Chinna Polamamba Temple, Pedawaltair, L B Colony, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary. Higher Education Department, Secretariat Buildings at Velagapudi, Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh.

¶14

The Registrar, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature . of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2"'* respondent in not considering the representation dated 06.08.2021 for Compassionate Appointment as well as in not providing employment to the petitioner under compassionate grounds as being illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to all cannons of justice consequentially direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.08.2021 for Compassionate Appointment.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.08.2021 for Compassionate Appointment pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI NERELLA S V RAVI TEJA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI V. SAI KUMAR, SC FOR AU

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

¶23

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶24

WRIT PETITION No. 2781 of 2023

¶25

ORDER;

¶26

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article

¶27

226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:

¶28

“...to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2"^^ respondent in not considering the representation dated 06.08.2021 for Compassionate Appointment as well as in not providing employment to the petitioner under compassionate grounds as being illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to all cannons ofjustice consequentially direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.08.2021 for Compassionate Appointment and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. “ (in verbatim)

¶29

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for the respondent and learned standing counsel appearing for the 2«‘i respondent.

¶30

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that a direction may be given to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 05.08.2021 submitted to the 2’^^ respondent, for which learned Government Pleader for Higher Education submits that the petitioner’s representation dated 06.08.2021 is not available at the Office of the respondent and if the petitioner submit a

¶31

¶32

representation afresh, the same may be considered by the respondents within a reasonable time, in accordance with law.

¶33

Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsels and in the facts and circumstances of the case, (without going into the merits of the case), the Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit a representation afresh within a period of ten days from today and on receipt of such representation, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon within a i period of four (04) weeks thereafter. It is made clear that the respondents will consider the petitioner’s representation on merits and in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to

¶34

costs.

¶35

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall/^tand closed.

¶36

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

Sd/- K.TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR SE< PFICER

¶39

To,

¶40

‘The Principal Secretary Higher Education Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings at Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶41

The Registrar, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶42

One CC to Sri Nerella S. V. Ravi Teja, Advocate [OPUC]

¶43

Two CCs to GP for Higher Education, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶44

One CC to Sri V.Sai Kumar, SC for AU (OPUC)

¶45

Two C.D. Copies

Cnr

HIGH COURT

DATE0:20/02/2023

ORDER

WP.No.2781 of 2023

¶51

21AU6 2K3
3
. Current Section

¶52

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Karri Shyamala v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karri Shyamala 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madasu Premchand, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P Venkata Ratnam Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M Mahabub Basha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K Guruswamy, Vs The Assistant General Manager

Koyya Venkata Rakesh Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Bangari Jaya Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh