Disposed

R.Narasimha Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Mar 2023WP/5216/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dealt with a writ petition challenging the refusal to permit an outsourced watchman and attender to attend to their duties. The court directed only one petitioner to file a representation to address his grievance before passing appropriate orders, while dismissing claims regarding the other petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner No. 1 is directed to file a representation to the respondents within two weeks; respondents to pass appropriate orders on receipt of representation within four weeks.

R.Narasimha Rao, Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.5216 of 2015

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article

¶5

226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶6

“……to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus, declaring the action of the 5^th respondent, in not permitting the petitioners 1 and 2 to attend to their duties as Watchman and Attender respectively, in the 4^th respondent – Agricultural Market Committee, Chilakaluripet, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents 4 and 5 to permit the petitioners 1 and 2, to attend to and discharge of their duties as Watchman and Attender respectively...….”

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners were engaged from 01.09.2009 and 01.04.2010, as Watchman and Attender respectively on outsourcing basis by the Agricultural Market Committee/4^th respondent through the 6^th respondent’s Agency without disengaging them.

¶8

As per G.O.Ms.No.1, Finance (HR.I) Department, dated 05.01.2015 which has been issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, directing continuance of employees engaged on Contract/Outsourcing basis from 02.06.2014 to

¶9

¶10

31.12.2014, till 31.03.2015, for which, the petitioners herein were also entitled too.

¶11

On 20.02.2015, the petitioners reported to duty but were denied orally by the 5^th respondent without giving any written intimation notwithstanding G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 05.01.2015.

¶12

In similar circumstances, aggrieved by the action of 5^th respondent one Satyanarayana has filed W.P.Nos.28950 of 2014 and the Hon’ble Court on 24.09.2014 has passed the following interim order:-

¶13

“The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to attend the duties, until further orders”.

¶14

The respondents No.4 & 5 have filed a counter stating that the Government have issued a policy / guidelines vide Circular Memo No.GAD01-SU0MISC/31/2019-SU-I, dated 20.11.2019 for constituting committees i.e., District level and State level. Further, as per the guidelines, all the outsourcing employees, who are currently engaged shall be migrated to APCOS and that will act as a placement agency. The further contentions of the counter are as follows:-

¶15

¶16

“the Government of Andhra Pradesh have brought certain reforms, for providing job security and payment of wages, and brought all the existing outsourced employees working in the office of Government offices including local bodies under APCOS from July, 2020”.

¶17

The petitioner No.2 i.e., M.Suman, s/o. Das, deputed (re-joined) into same office of AMC, Chilakaluripet on 10.07.2019 and working till date, through some other agency i.e. Sivaji Detective Security Services. Later on, the 2^nd petitioner was migrated to APCOS and his name was registered in APCOS and his name was registered in APCOS through this AMC, vide his ID No:206434234. The 2^nd petitioner is working in the agriculture market committee, Chilakaluripeta till date. Likewise, the petitioner No.2 had submitted a letter to this office that; he has no objection as to withdraw the present writ petition. The 1^st petitioner i.e., R.Narasimha Rao, S/o.Jagannadham is maintaining his own catering business (own hotel), for the last 5 years, at Chilakaluripet town only”.

¶18

Further, in view of the judgment of the

¶19

Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Neeraj Awassti¹ no direction can be given in the absence of valid agreement to continue his services.

¶20

However at the end, learned counsel for the petitioners requested to issue a direction to the respondents to consider

¶21

1 (2006) 1 SCC 667

¶22

¶23

the case of the petitioner No.1 on a fresh representation if he is permitted by this Court.

¶24

In view of the same, the petitioner No.1 is directed to file a representation to the respondents ventilating his grievance in this regard within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on filing such representation, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders as per the rules on the subject within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter.

¶25

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶27

______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶28

Date: 16.03.2023 PSR/KBS

¶29

¶30

285

¶31

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.5216 of 2015

¶33

Date: 16.03.2023

¶34

PSR/KBS

R.Narasimha Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Narasimha Rao, 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vadlamudi Yugandhar Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. M.Venkataramana Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Penaka Subhash Chandera Bose, Vs the State of Ap

K.Tirumaleshwar Reddy S/o Bhaskar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Ramanjaneyulu, Vs The State of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary

N Venkata Uma Mahesh Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh