Disposed¶32

Kasi Swaroop v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Apr 2025WP/11138/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kasi Swaroop v. State of Andhra Pradesh, WP 11138/2019, Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, decided 21.04.2025. Article 226 mandamus challenge to removal from employment as shift operator on 30-07-2019 without notice; relief sought: reinstatement and Rs.1,11,000/- salary arrears. Respondents 2 to 7 (including APEPDCL through Standing Counsel V.V. Satish) submitted the petitioner was engaged by respondent No.7 under a two-year contract that had ended and the work was concluded. Petitioner unrepresented at hearing; writ petition disposed of on submissions without merits adjudication; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Recording the submissions of counsel, the writ petition is disposed of; there shall be no order as to costs. ¶32

Kasi Swaroop Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

APHC010248092019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3396]

¶6

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 11138/2019

Between:

Kasi Swaroop

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶17

1.K S BHASKARA SASTRY VEMPARALA

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶19

1.V V N NARAYANA RAO

¶20

2.V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL)

¶21

3.GP FOR ENERGY (AP)

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with

¶25

the following prayer:

¶26

“…..to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in removing the petitioner from the employment as shift operator on 30-07-2019 without issuance any notice despite representation dated 30-07-2019 as arbitrary, illegal, capricious apart from violation of provisions of the A.P. Electricity Act and rules and regulations framed there under apart from right guaranteed

¶27

¶28

under Article 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the employment forthwith in the 6^th respondent office under the supervision of 7^th respondent and further consequently direct the respondents to pay total arrears of salary of Rs.1,11,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eleven Thousand only) for period from 05-122018 to till date forthwith pending consideration of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders…...”

¶29

Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.7 would submit that the petitioner was engaged by respondent No.7 and the contract period is only for two years, which was ended long back, as such, nothing survives in this matter.

¶30

Sri V.V.Satish, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 6 would submit that there was no contract between the petitioner with the Corporation. The petitioner was engaged by respondent No.7 and work is concluded.

¶31