Salapaka Venkatesh Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

SALAPAKA VENKATESH KUMAR, S/O.VEERABRAHMACHARI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC CIVIL ENGINEER, R/O.D.NO.2-40, KOTHAPETA, RAMALAYAM STREET, VEERAVARAM, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOUSING DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

ANDHRA PRADESH TOWNSHIP AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, (APTIDCO), 4TH FLOOR, NTR ADMINISTRATION BLOCK, BUS BHAVAN, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶14

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED APSHCL, 4TH FLOOR, NTR ADMINISTRATION BLOCK, BUS BHAVAN, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶15

THE PROJECT OFFICER/EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DISTRICT HEAD OFFICE, APSHCL, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, A.P

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

2

¶18

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 appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 11.06.2025 to continue the petitioners services as City Level Technical Cell (CLTC) and to pay salary pending for few months as wholly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Art. 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners services as City Level Technical Cell (CLTC) and to pay salary pending for few months in the interest of justice and to pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

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 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.06.2025 to continue the petitioner’s services as City Level Technical Cell (CLTC) and to pay salary pending for few months pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice and to pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.SULTANA SHAIK

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.PADMAJA GADIRAJU(SC FOR APTIDCO)

¶25

2.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶26

3

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.33051 of 2025

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 11.06.2025 seeking continuation of the petitioner as City Level Technical Cell (CLTC), as illegal and arbitrary.

¶31

The petitioner was appointed as City Level Technical Cell (CLTC) in the 2^nd respondent Corporation on 03.11.2017 at Atmakur Municipality, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, to work under the control of the Project Officer (Executive Engineer) on a contractual basis. While so, the petitioner made a representation dated 04.09.2018 seeking transfer from Nellore District to Kakinada District, which was recorded vide proceedings dated 06.10.2018, and accordingly the petitioner was transferred to Pithapuram ULB. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent on deputation to the 3rd respondent Corporation.

¶32

While the petitioner was discharging his duties at Kakinada City, he gave a complaint against one Sri K. Satyanarayana Reddy, pursuant to which the petitioner was attacked at the instance of the said individual. The petitioner thereafter lodged a further complaint against Sri K. Satyanarayana Reddy and two others before the Sarpavaram Police Station, and a crime was registered against them in Crime No.40 of 2025 dated 17.01.2025 for the offences under Sections 115(2), 351(2) read with 3(5) of BNS, and a charge sheet was also

¶33

4

¶34

filed in that regard. It is stated that Sri K. Satyanarayana Reddy also lodged a complaint against the petitioner, which was registered as Crime No.587 of 2024 of Sarpavaram Police Station.

¶35

While so, the District Collector/Executive Director of the 3^rd respondent Corporation, vide proceedings dated 24.01.2025, initiated a departmental enquiry, and the services of the petitioner were surrendered to the parent department, i.e., the 2^nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 18.12.2024. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.12.2024 to the Chairman, APTIDCO, requesting consideration of his case on humanitarian grounds; however, the same was not considered. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 11.06.2025 to the 2^nd respondent requesting issuance of orders permitting him to rejoin service. Since the said representation was also not considered, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶36

Considering the above, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 11.06.2025 for continuation of the petitioner in service, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

5

¶38

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

¶39

JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶40

Date: 16.12.2025 SNI

¶41

6

¶42

42