Allowed

M. Krishnamraju, Y.S.R.Kadapa Dist v. Prl Secy, Energy Dept, Hyderabad and 4 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Sept 2024WP/19610/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's appointment under the Andhra Pradesh Land Losers Resettlement Scheme. The High Court ordered the respondents to consider the petitioner's case and provide employment in accordance with G.O.Ms. No.98.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's case and provide employment in accordance with the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986.

M. Krishnamraju, Y.S.R.Kadapa Dist Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 19610 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

M. Krishnamraju, S/o. Narayana, Aged 29 years R/o. D.No. 3/95, P. Srigapalli Village, Jammalamadugu (M), Y.S.R. Kadapa^District. ...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal^{Secretary,Energy} Department, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation,^Rep.byits

¶12

Chairman & Managing Director, Vidyut Souda, Hyderabad

¶13

The Director (HR), Andhra Pradesh Power Generation^Corporation, Vidyut Souda, Hyderabad

¶14

The District Collector, Y.S.R Kadapa District.

¶15

The Chief Engineer, Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project,^Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation, Y.S.R. Kadapa^District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India^{prayingthatin} the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{theHighCourtmay} be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more^{particularlyoneinthe} nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents in issuing the impugned , letter No. CE/O&M/RTPP/SE/A&MM/Adm/AAO/JA0/B1/W.P.No.1311/15/D.No.991/1 dated 22-05-2015, rejecting the case of petitioner^{forappointmentunder} Land Looser Category, though the petitioner is entitled^{asperthescheme} contained in G.O.Ms. No.98, dated 15-04-1998. And the^{furtheraction} in

¶18

¶19

V'-s' 'W.

¶20

appointing 88 candidates, who are land loosers on contract^basiswithout cdnsINring the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, violative^{ofArticle14and16} •of Constitution of India.

¶21

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 25319 OF 2015)

¶22

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 suspend the impugned proceeding in Letter No. CE/O&M/RTPP/SE/A&MM/ Adm/AAO /JAO/B1/W. P .No .1311/15/D.No. 991/15,date d 22-05-2015 with consequential directions to consider the petitioner in the existing vacancies of the post of Junior Plant Attendant, Junior Assistant, Mazdoor in Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. V. SHIVAJI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENERGY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2,3 & 5: SRI NAGARAJU NAGURU, SC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

[3333]

APHC010469822015

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

¶32

WEDNESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶33

PRESENT

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO: 19610/2015

¶36

Between:

¶37

M. Krishnamraju, Y.s.r.kadapa Dist ...PETITIONER

¶38

AND

¶39

Prl Secy Energy Dept Hyderabad 4 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶40

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶41

1.G VSHIVAJI

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶43

1.NAGARAJU NAGURU

¶44

2.GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 3.M. VIDYASAGAR, ( STANDING COUNSEL FOR APGENCO ) 4.GP FOR ENERGY (AP) 5.VSESHA KUMARI

¶45

The Court made the following:

¶46

¶47

ORDER:

¶48

This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶49

of India, seeking the following relief:

¶50

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly^{oneinthenatureof} writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents in issuing the impugned letter No.CE/O&M/RTPP/SE/A&MM/Adm/AAO/JA0/B1AA/.P. No.1311/15/D.No.991/15, dated 22.05.2015, rejecting the case of petitioner for appointment under Land Looser Category, though the petitioner is entitled as per the scheme contained in G. O. Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1998 and the further action in appointing 88 candidates who are land loosers on contract basis without considering the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary ....”

¶51

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is a graduate in B.A. and also passed ITI (Mechanical Diesel) and he was depending on an extent of Ac.0-51 Cents of agricultural land situated in Sy.No.227/1, Kalamalla Village, Yerraguntia Mandal, for his livelihood. The said land was acquired for construction of Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project - IV Stage and the Award was passed on 29-01-2012. The petitioner was interviewed by the Scrutiny Committee headed by 4‘^ and respondents and the list for eligible candidates was prepared, in which the petitioner was found eligible and placed at SI.No.290 in the Selection list dated 02.02.2014 issued by the 4 th respondent, but surprisingly petitioner has not been considered for employment on the technical reason that petitioner did not possess ITI qualification. It is submitted as the petitioner is possessing qualification for other posts of Junior Assistants etc., and he passed ITI also in the month of

¶52

¶53

March, 2014, he again made representation to the respondents^but till date the petitioner has not been considered for employment.

¶54

Even though the petitioner is genuine and eligible candidate, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner for employment. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing the Writ Petition No.12641 of 2015, seeking directions to provide employment as Junior Plant Attendant in Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project as per G.O.Ms. No.98. This Court upon hearing the Writ Petition at length granted interim directions vide Order dated 28-04-2015, directing the respondents to consider for providing employment under Land Losers Scheme. In pursuance of the interim directions, the respondents, without even verifying their own records simply issued impugned Letter vide Lr. No. CE/O&M/ RTPP/SE/A&MM/Adm/AAO/JAO/BI / W.P.No.1311/15/D.No. 991/15, dated 22-05-2015 stating that the case of petitioner is rejected. Challenging the said order, present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Heard Mr.G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the petitioner^and learned Government Pleader for Energy for respondent No.1 and 4, as well as Mr.Nagaraju Naguru, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.2,3,5.

¶55

The facts of the Writ Petition are not in dispute. During the course of arguments, it was brought to the notice of this Court that under similar

¶56

¶57

¶58

circumstances, a learned Single Judge of this Court has passed the following orderin W.P.No.24319 of 2019;

¶59

“10. Admittedly, the commercial operations in RTPP Stage-IV were commenced. Vacancies are available as Indicated supra (as per Right to Information Act). The respondents shall take steps to fill up the posts, as per their need, after issuing notification and by following the procedure contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.98. In sofaras petitioner is concerned, G.O.Ms.No.98 clarified that the candidates eligible for the appointment under the scheme shall be from displaced persons or his/her son, daughter or spouse, without therebeing no other earning^memberinthe family.

¶60

Keeping in view the guidelines in the G.O.Ms.no.98, respondents’ authorities shall consider the case of the 2"^ petitioner^since the 1 St petition addressed letter to the authorities to delete^{hisnameandinclude} the name of the 2"^ petitioner in his place. Respondent^{authoritiesshall} complete the exercise, as per their need, as early as possible."

¶61

The order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24319 of 2018, dated 14.03.2023, was further confirmed in W.A.No.908 of 2023 vide order dated 03.11.2023.

¶62

Taking into consideration the above said order, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition under similar lines by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and provide employment to the petitioner in accordance with the guidelines issued in the G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986. The respondent authorities shall complete the aforesaid exercise, as per their need, as early as possible.

¶63

¶64

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

¶65

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Petition shall stand closed.

¶66

SD/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Energy Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur.

¶71

The Chairman & Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation, Vidyut Souda, Vijayawada.

¶72

The Director (HR), Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation, Vidyut Souda, Hyderabad

¶73

The District Collector, Y.S.R Kadapa District.

¶74

Engineer,, Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project, Andhra

¶75

Pradesh Power Generation Corporation, Y.S.R. Kadapa^District.

¶76

One CC to Sri G. V. Shivaji Advocate [OPUC]

¶77

One CC to M/s.V Sesha Kumari, Advocate [OPUC]

¶78

One CC to Sri Nagaraju Naguru, SC for APGENCO[OPUC]

¶79

One CC to Sri M. Vidyasagar, SC for APGENCO[OPUC] 10. Two CCs to GP for Energy, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 11. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

¶80

[OUT]

¶81

Three CD Copies. ssb

A-

HIGH COURT

DATED:04/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.19610 of 2015

OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS DISPOSING

M. Krishnamraju, Y.S.R.Kadapa Dist v. Prl Secy, Energy Dept, Hyderabad and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Krishnamraju, Y.S.R.Kadapa Dist v. Prl Secy, Energy Dept, Hyderabad and 4 Others

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

S.Sunil Kumar Vs State of Ap

Rahul Shivashankar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Ratha Rao Vs State of Ap

K.Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Chief Engineer (Projects) Srisailam Project, Vs a. Jayanna

Smt.M.Ch.Lalitha Kumari, W/o Ramesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh