Partly allowed

Naripogula Anandaiah v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC25 Nov 2024WP/26079/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition regarding petitioners 3, 6, 20, and 21 as proceedings suspending their services were pending, allowing them to challenge those proceedings. For other petitioners, it directed respondents not to prevent them from discharging duties without following due process.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed for petitioners 3, 6, 20, 21 with liberty to challenge suspension orders; for others, direction issued to respondents not to prevent discharge of duties without due process.

Naripogula Anandaiah Vs the State of Ap — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

[3331]

¶2

APHC010500572024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 26079/2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

NARIPOGULA ANANDAIAH, S/O ANJINAYYA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1-48-2, SAMBAGALLU VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶10

S. MANOHAR BABU,, S/O VENKATESWARULU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1-99-3, SADAPURAM VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶11

BELLARY GOPAL,, S/O NAGENDRA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1-124, BC COLONY, AREKALLU VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶12

JAVANIKI UCHHA RANGA,, S/O RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1-52, BALDUR VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶13

BHGYAGARI DARGAPPA,, S/O CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1-96, HOSALLI VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶14

EDIGA CHANDRASHEKHAR,, S/O ERANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1-123, KAPATI VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶15

HIRAVADI VEERESH,, S/O KALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/OD.NO.6-102-20, PEDDA HARIVANAM VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶16

KUDITHINI VEERESH,, S/O MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26

¶17

SRS,J W.P.No.26079 of 2024

¶18

Page 2 of 6

¶19

YEARS, R/O D.NO.2-19, SANTHEKUDLUR VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶20

CHAKALI MAHESH,, S/O ESWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1-48, PEDDA THUMBALAM VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶21

K. RAMANJINEYULU,, S/O PEDDA VEERA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-1, NAGALAPURAM VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶22

G. NAGARAJU,, S/O ERANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/OD.NO.1-114, MANTRIKI VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶23

SALAKALAKONDA GURRALA ERANNA, , S/O URUKUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O D.NO.2-86, SALAKALAKONDA VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶24

DANDU RAMANJANEYULU,, S/O ERANNA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O D.NO.2-70, JALIMANCHI VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶25

HUBBALI UPPARA VEERESH,, S/O RANGANNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O D.NO.4-34, PEDDA PENDEKAL VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶26

MANGALI SAROJA,, W/O RAMUDU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O D.NO.6-12, MADIRE VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶27

J. MALLIKARJUNA,, S/O LAKSHMANNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O D.NO.2-120, NETTEKAL VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶28

CHEVULA NAGESH,, S/O ERANNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1-9, BALLEKALLU VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶29

SINGILIKI RAMESH,, S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/OD.NO.1-109, NAGANATHANA HALLI, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶30

NAGALUTI RAGHU,, S/O VIRUPAKSHI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

SRS,J

Page 3 of 6

W.P.No.26079 of 2024

R/O D.NO.3-23, GANEKAL VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶35

PINJARI BABU,, S/O RAJASAAB, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1-42, KADITHOTA VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶36

. KAMBATI JAYARAMI REDDY,, S/O ESHWAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/OD.NO.1-72, BYCHIGERI VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶37

PAMAYYAGARI VENKATESULU,, S/O PEDDA NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1-56/1, KUPPAGAL VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶38

...PETITIONER(S)

¶39

AND

¶40

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶41

THE DISTRICT COLLECTORCUMDISTRICT PROGRAMME COORDINATOR, MGNREGS, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P.

¶42

THE PROJECT DIRECTORCUMADDITIONAL DISTRICT PROGRAMME COORDINATOR, DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶43

THE PROJECT MANAGER, , MGNREGS, AT COLLECTORATE OFFICE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶44

THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, , MGNREGS MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD, ADONI MANDAL, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶45

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶46

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 topleased to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents 2 to 5 in dispensing with the Petitioners services and not allowing them to

SRS,J

Page 4 of 6

W.P.No.26079 of 2024

work as Field Assistants in Villages within the jurisdiction of 4th Respondent even without passing any orders, assigning any reasons as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme Act, 2005 and in violation of Article 14, 21 of Constitution and consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 5 to continue the Petitioners as Field Assistants in various Grama Panchayats and allow them to work as Field Assistants and pass

¶51

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶52

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 pleased to direct the Respondents 2 to 5 to continue the Petitioners as Field Assistants in various Grama Panchayats and allow them to work as Field Assistants and pass

¶53

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶54

1.N V MOHANA RAO

¶55

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶56

1.GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶57

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶58

Petitioners 22 in number, working as Field Assistants, filed the above writ petition complaining of the high-handed action on the part of respondents 2 to 5 in not allowing them to discharge their duties as Field Assistants in their respective Gram Panchayats, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶59

Heard Sri A. Shyam Sunder, learned counsel representing Sri N.V. Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri R.S. Manidhar Pingal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for respondent No.1; Sri M.S.R. Chandra Murthy, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 to 4 and Smt. B.V. Aparna Lakshmi, learned standing counsel for respondent No.5.

¶60

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been working as Field Assistants in their respective Gram Panchayats, since the dates of their joining, as per the particulars furnished in para No.3 of the

SRS,J

Page 5 of 6

W.P.No.26079 of 2024

writ affidavit. However, respondents 2 to 5, without issuing any notices are not allowing the petitioners to discharge their duties as Field Assistants.

¶65

Learned standing counsel for respondents 2 to 4, submitted a copy of the instructions of Project Director, DWMA, Kurnool. He also submitted copies of proceedings issued by respondent No.4 vide Rc.No.D8/DVC/SA/17^th round/2024 dated 18.11.2024, whereby petitioners 3, 6, 20 and 21 were suspended from services. Learned standing counsel submitted that in respect of other petitioners, an inquiry, was initiated based on the complaints received. However, the respondents have not obstructed them from discharging their duties.

¶66

The said statement made by learned standing counsel, regarding noninterference of the officials, is recorded.

¶67

Given the proceedings issued by respondent No.4 vide Rc.No.D8/DVC/SA/17^th round/2024 dated 18.11.2024, suspending petitioners 3, 6, 20 and 21 from the services, the writ petition in respect of petitioners, 3, 6, 20 and 21 is dismissed giving liberty to challenge the proceedings issued vide Rc.No.D8/DVC/SA/17^th round/2024 dated 18.11.2024.

¶68

The writ petition is disposed of insofar as other petitioners are concerned, given the submission of learned standing counsel for respondents 2 to 4 regarding non-interference of the respondents, directing respondents 2 to 5 not to prevent the petitioners from discharging their duties as Field Assistants in their respective Gram Panchayats, without following due process of law. No costs.

¶69

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶70

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶71

Date: 26.11.2024 IKN

¶72

SRS,J W.P.No.26079 of 2024

¶73

Page 6 of 6

¶74

¶75

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶76

WRIT PETITION NO: 26079 /2024

¶77

Date: 26.11.2024 IKN

Naripogula Anandaiah v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naripogula Anandaiah v. the State of Ap

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

Tiruveedula Murali Babu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Jalaparthi Kullayappa Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kakanuru Nirmalamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ravada Meenakshi Vs the State of Ap

Shaik Moulana Abdul Kalam Azad Vs the State of Ap

Chanda Adilakshmi @ Jorege Adilakshmi Vs the State of Ap