Disposed

M. Phanidhara Prasad, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Jul 2024WP/4732/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner challenged the inaction of temple authorities regarding missing service files and sought a declaration that such inaction was illegal. The court directed the third respondent to consider the representation within four months before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.06.2020 and pass appropriate orders within four months.

M. Phanidhara Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

A L

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 4732 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

M. Phanidhara Prasad, S/o. Late M.V. Aradhyulu, Aged 54 years, OccAssistant Executive Officer, Sri Bramarambha Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple Srisailam, Kurnool District. ’ ...Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,^Guntur District, A.P.

¶11

The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Gollapudi Viiavawada Krishna District.

¶12

Sri Bramarambha Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple, Srisailam, Kurnool District, Rep. by its Executive Officer.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not taking any action on the petitioner's representation dated 25-6-2020 for restoring the service files of the petitioner as per the directions of the State Information Commissioner, vide order in Appeal Case NO.3680/SIC-EMR/2010 dated 9-7-2012 as bad, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to take appropriate action by conducting enquiry

¶15

•4

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

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 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25-6-2020 as per the directions of the State Information Commissioner, vide order in Appeal Case No.3680/SICEMR/2010 dated 9-7-2012

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2094

¶19

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 grant leave for filing of this Counter Affidavit dated 19-07-2024 in WP. No. 4732 of 2022 in the interest of justice

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D V SASIDHAR

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 and 2: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.3: G RAMANA RAO The Court made the following: Order

¶22

APHC010075722022

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶24

[3310]

¶25

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶26

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 4732/2022

Between:

M. Phanidhara Prasad

...PETITIONER

AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT{S)

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner;

¶33

1.D VSASIDHAR

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.G RAMANA RAO (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS RAYALASEEMAREGION)

¶35

2.G RAMANA RAO

¶36

The Court made the following order:

¶37

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226^ofthe

¶38

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶39

“...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not taking any action on the petitioner's representation dated 25-6-2020 for restoring the service files of the petitioner as per the directions of the State Information Commissioner, vide order in Appeal Case No.3680/SIC-EMR/2010 dated 9-72012 as bad, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct^the respondents to take appropriate action by conducting enquiry...”

¶40

Heard Sri D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶41

and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for

¶42

respondents 1 and 2 and also Sri G.Ramana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for 3'''‘ respondent-Temple.

¶43

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially, the petitioner was appointed in the establishment^{of3'"^} respondent-Temple as Junior Assistant and later he was promoted as Senior Assistant and thereafter Superintendent. Finally he was promoted as Assistant Executive Officer vide proceedings of the respondent in Rc.No.A1/4393-A/2010, dated 26.01.2019 notionally w.e.f., 07.03.2012 and the same is evident from the proceedings of the Executive Officer vide Rc.No.A1/4393-A/2010, dated 06.06.2019, wherein his pay scale was fixed in the cadre of AEO w.e.f., 07.03.2012, as^onthedate he is working as Assistant Executive Officer. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner requested the Executive^Officerto furnish his service records for his personal purpose^andfuture service benefits under RTI Act. In reply to the same^anorderwas passed in Appeal Case No.3680/SIC-EMR/2010, dated 09.07.2012 by the State Information Commissioner recording^the statement of the temple as follows:

¶45

“9. The appellant has requested for perusal of (20) files. It is reported by the PIO that the file No.’s A2/3685/1989, A2/6348/1989, A2/5928/1989, Pay Bill 1989, A1/5500/1992, A1/5710/1994, A1/3787/1990, A174205/4992, A1765/1996, A17174772004 mentioned in letter, dated 30.06.2012 are missing. There is no record that these files were destroyed after keeping for requisite period. The Public Authority, i.e.. Executive Officer, to investigate into the matter fix responsibility on the concerned and initiate disciplinary action within (30) days. An AIR should be lodged with the police for missing of files. ”

¶46

I I

¶47

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the said circumstances, the petitioner has submitted several representations including the representation, dated 25.06.2020 to the Executive Officer and to the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool on 19.07.2020 marking a copy to the Circle Inspector^andSub- Inspector of Srisailam, to take necessary action but no action has been taken so far by the respondent authorities. Unless appropriate action has to be taken on the petitioner’s representations for restoring his service files by taking action against the persons, who are responsible for not safeguarding^the valuable service records, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated by any means. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondent authorities to dispose of his representation, dated 25.06.2020 submitted by the petitioner, within a stipulated time.

¶50

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that if any representation is pending, the respondent authorities will be considered the same.

¶51

Since the issue of the petitioner is of the year, 2012 , even though an order was passed in Appeal Case No.3680/SIC-

¶52

¶53

State Information EMR/2010 dated 09.07.2012 by the submitted several and despite the petitioner Commissioner dated 25.06.2020, including the representation representations not taken any appropriate action the respondent authorities have till date. In view of the same, this Court is of the on the same considered opinion to dispose^{ofthiswritpetitionwithadirection} consider and pass appropriate to the 3'^'^ respondent-Temple to orders on the petitioner’s representation, dated 25.06.2020 in expeditiously, as possible, within a accordance with law, as the date of receipt of a copy of this period of four (4) months from order.

¶54

direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 8. With the above No order as to costs.

¶55

As a sequel , interlocutory Applications pending, if any , in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶56

SQ/. K.SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANTREGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶57

//TRUE COPY//

¶58

To,

¶59

Revenue (Endowments) Department,

¶60

1. The Principal Secretary Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶61

Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Department, Gollapudi, Vijayawada,

¶62

1. The Commissioner, Endowments Krishna District. Bramarambha Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple,

¶63

3 The Executive Officer, Sri I ?:s w'S™ I -

¶64

I ?:s [OPUC]

¶65

1. Three CD Copies

gsg

HIGH COURT

DATED: 19/07/2024

ORDER

WP.No.4732 of 2022

AND^

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

M. Phanidhara Prasad, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Phanidhara Prasad, 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

Veeranki Srinivas, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. Anjaneya Swami Devalaya Bhakta Mandali, Vs The Commissioner

Smt. Nali Kannamma, Vs The State of A.P.

Kalamala Nagaraju Vs the State of Ap

Smt.Y.Salome Mercy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gogulapalli Mastan Bee, Vs . The State of Andhra Pradesh