Disposed

Karlapudi Subramanyam v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Sept 2024WP/19364/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition and miscellaneous application, the High Court, at the stage of admission and by consent of counsel, disposed of the matter directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's discharging duties as Field Assistant under MGNREGS without following due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents 5 & 6 not to interfere with the petitioner's discharging duties as Field Assistant, without following due process of law.

Karlapudi Subramanyam Vs the State of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 19364 OF 2024

¶7

Between;

¶8

Karlapudi Subramanyam, S/o. Meeraiah, aged about 49 years, Occ-Field Assistant, R/o. Allamvadu Grama Panchayat, Kota Mandal, Tirupati District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, (Panchayatraj and Rural Development), Secretariat Buildings

¶12

Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶13

The Commissioner, Rural Development/State Programme Coordinator of M.G. National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶14

The District Collector / District Programme Co-ordinator, Tirupati District, Tirupati.

¶15

The Project Director, District Water Management Agency, Tirupati Tirupati District.

¶16

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Kota Mandal,Tirupati District.

¶17

<86

¶18

The Additional Programme Officer, MGNREGS, Kota Mandal, Tirupati District

¶19

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 the Writ order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents No. 5 and 6, who has not allowing the petitioner to attend for his duty as field Assistant at Kothapatnam Gram Panchayat of Kota Mandal, Tirupati District, without following due procedure of law as illegal, arbitary and against the principles of natural Justice and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and Consequently directing the Respondent Authorities to allow the petitioner for works as field Assistant for Kothapatnam Gram Panchayat of Kota Mandal, Tirupati^District

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶21

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 to direct the respondent authorities to consider the request of the petitioner by allowing the petitioner to attend for duty as Field Assistant for Kothapatnam Gram Panchayat of Kota Mandal, Tirupati^District.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. V ROOPESH KUMAR^REDDY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents No. 2 to 4 and 6: SRI. MSR CHANDRA MURTHY (STANDING COUNSEL)

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents No. 5: SMT. B.V. APARNA LAKSHMI (STANDING COUNSEL)

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶27

¶28

APHC010354992024

¶29

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

¶30

[3331]

¶31

FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶32

PRESENT

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶34

WRIT PETITION NO: 19364/2024

¶35

Between:

¶36

Karlapudi Subramanyam ...PETITIONER

¶37

AND

¶38

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶39

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶40

1.V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶42

1.GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶43

The Court made the following:

¶44

:: ORDER ::

¶45

The above writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶46

India seeking the following relief:

¶47

“...to issue the Writ order or Direction more particularly^{inthenatureofWrit} of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents No. 5 & 6, who has not allowing the petitioner to attend for his duty as field Assistant at Kothapatnam Gram Panchayat of Kota Mandal, Tirupati District, without following due procedure of law as illegal, arbitary and against the principles

Page 2 of 4

SRS J W.P.No.19364 of 2024

¶52

of natural Justice and violation of Article 14, 21 & 300-A of Constitution of India and Consequently directing the Respondent Authorities to allow the petitioner for works as field Assistant for Kothapatnam Gram Panchayat of Kota Mandal, Tirupati District and to pass such other order or orders ...”

¶53

Heard Sri V.Roopesh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appeared for respondent No.1 and Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel appeared for respondents 2 to 4 & 6, and Smt.B.V.Aparna Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel appeared for respondent No.5.

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant in Kothapatnam Gram Panchayat, Kota Mandal, Tirupati District, under MGNREGS and he joined in the service on 05.12.2007. Since, then the petitioner has been discharging his duties. Respondents 5 & 6 without issuing any notice are not allowing the petitioner to discharge his duties as Field Assistant.

¶55

Learned Standing Counsel, on instructions of the Project Director, DWMA Tirupati, would submit that respondents 5 & 6, are not interfering with the petitioner’s discharging duties as Field Assistant. The same^is recorded.

¶56

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission with the consent of both the learned counsel, directing the respondents 5 & 6 not to interfere with the petitioner’s

¶57

; .3

¶58

SKS,J W.P.No. 19364 of 2024

¶59

discharging duties as Field Assistant, without following due process of law.

¶60

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶61

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^{shallstandclosed.}

¶62

Sd/- P.U.V.BHASKAR RAO //TRUE COPY// assistant registrar

¶63

To,

¶64

SECTION OFFICER

¶65

The Principal Secretary, (Panchayatraj and Rural Development) Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶66

The Commissioner, Rural Development/State Programme^Coordinator of M.G. National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶67

The District Collector / District Programme Co-ordinator, Tirupati District Tirupati.

¶68

The Project Director, District Water Management Agency, Tirupati, Tirupati District.

¶69

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Kota Mandal,Tirupati District.

¶70

The Additional Programme Officer, MGNREGS, Kota Mandal, Tirupati District

¶71

One CC to SRI. V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

¶72

Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES IV, Fligh Court of Andhra^Pradesh. [OUT]

¶73

One CC to SRI. MSR CHANDRA MURTHY (STANDING COUNSEL) [OPUC]

¶74

One CC to SMT. B.V. APARNA LAKSHMI (STANDING COUNSEL) [OPUC]

¶75

Three CD Copies.

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/09/2024

OF
s:N5i;^
m.
2 7 JAN 2?:5
O
Current oeciion

¶82

ORDER

¶83

WP.No.19364 of 2024

¶84

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Karlapudi Subramanyam v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karlapudi Subramanyam 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

Thaluri Nagendra Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Omkaram, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Angalakuditi Manikya Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S Ganga Rao Vs the State of Ap

Barre Ragal Kiran Vs the Union of India

Kondeti Dasu Vs Sri S Naga Laksmi