Disposed¶49

K. Durgambika v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Jul 2025WP/10559/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Daily wage worker/Web Operator termination by Acharya Nagarjuna University after criminal case (Crime No.133/2016, Pedakakani PS) ending in acquittal; writ of mandamus under Article 226 invoking Articles 14, 21 and S.9-A Industrial Disputes Act 1947; representation dated 19.01.2018 for reinstatement; petition disposed with direction to ANU to consider representation per governing rules and law; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.2 (Acharya Nagarjuna University) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.01.2018 in the light of the judgment of acquittal in the criminal case and take an appropriate decision according to the governing rules and law; no order as to costs; pending applications, if any, stand closed. ¶49

K. Durgambika Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of Respondent No.2 in issuing proceedings putting off the petitioner's service as a Daily Wage Worker was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. +1 more

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's representation in the light of the judgment of acquittal in the criminal case and take an appropriate decision according to the governing rules and law; no order as to costs, and pending applications stand closed. The Court did not adjudicate the alleged arbitrariness or the Articles 14/21 and Section 9-A ID Act challenge on merits.

¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa), by order dated 08.07.2025, disposed of W.P. No. 10559 of 2018 filed by K. Durgambika, a daily-wage worker (Web Operator) at Acharya Nagarjuna University whose services were put off following her implication in Crime No.133 of 2016 of Pedakakani Police Station, a case that ended in acquittal. The petition had sought a writ of mandamus declaring the put-off action arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with reinstatement. Without deciding those contentions on merits, the Court directed Respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.01.2018 in the light of the judgment of acquittal and take an appropriate decision according to the governing rules and law. No order as to costs; pending applications closed.

¶1

APHC010229302018

¶2

0MS

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY. THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 10559 OF 2018

¶8

Between:

¶9

K. Durgambika, W/o Eamani Srinivasa Reddy, Age. 38 Yrs, Daily Wage Worker, O/o Indira Priyadarshini Ladies Hostel, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Guntur District.

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur^District.

¶13

The Acharya Nagarjuna University, Rep. by its Registrar, ANU, Guntur Dist.

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

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 a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly^{oneinthenature} of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent issued proceedings by putting off petitioner service under Daily Wage Worker as arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and Sec 9 - A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner by cancelling the said proceedings.

¶16

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybepleasedto} direct the 2nd Respondent to reinstate Petitioner immediately^{byconsidering} case of the petitioner dated 19.01.2018 pending disposal^{oftheaboveWrit} Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI K RAMACHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent No.1; GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M CHALAPATHI (SC^FORANU)

¶20

The Court made the following order;

¶21

IT’-

¶22

APHC010229302018

¶23

HfflS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ^ vTi • w r AT AMARAVATI ■JSTrf (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶24

[3396]

¶25

TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶28

WRIT PETITION No. 10559/2018

¶29

Between:

¶30

IK.DURGAMBIKA, W/O.EAMANI SRINIVASA REDDY, AGE. 38 YRS, DAILY WAGE WORKER, O/O.INDIRA PRIYADARSHINI LADIES HOSTEL, ACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER

¶31

AND

¶32

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDl, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶33

2.THE ACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR ANU, GUNTUR DIST.

¶34

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶35

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 a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly^{oneinthenatureof} WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent issued proceedings by putting off petitioner service under Daily Wage Worker as arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and Sec 9 - A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner by cancelling the said proceedings and pass

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶37

1.K RAMACHANDRA

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent{S):

¶39

1.M CHALAPATHI SC FOR ANU

¶40

The Court made the following:

¶41

ORDER:

¶42

The instant Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking indulgence of

¶43

this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

¶44

I. b-.

¶45

¶46

to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly^one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent issued proceedings by putting off petitioner service under Daily Wage Worker as arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and Sec 9 A of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner by cancelling the said proceedings and pass

¶47

Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that Petitioner worked as Web Operator (on daily wage basis) in respondent authorities and her services were terminated due to lodging a criminal case against her in Crime No.133 of 2016 of Pedakakani Police Station, Guntur Urban District. Learned counsel would submit that a direction may be given to respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 19.01.2018 submitted by the Petitioner for reinstatement into Service since the criminal case lodged against her was ended in acquittal.

¶48

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶49

In that view, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner in the light of Judgment of acquittal of the Petitioner in the criminal case and take an appropriate decision according to the governing rules and law. No order as to costs.

¶50

Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶51

Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER