K S Rao Vs the State of Ap

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District

¶13

The Commissioner Panchayat Raj And Rural Development

¶14

Department, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶15

The District Collector, Srikakulam District.

¶16

The Project Director, District Water Management Agency, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District.

¶17

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Mandasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not incorporating the name of the petitioner to system attached to the National Rural Employment Guaranteed Scheme of the 4*^ respondent on the representation dated 30.01.2019 is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the respondents 4 and 5 to permit the petitioner to attend to his regular duties as a Field Assistant of Haripuram Grampanchayat of Mandasa Mandal, Srikakulam District by paying the regular salaries together with arrears.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶21

Petition under Rule 12 1 (a) of Writ Rules R/w 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 to the petitioner to file Counter in W.P.No.1309 of 2019. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 respondents 4 & 5 to permit the petitioner to attend to his regular duties as a Field Assistant of Haripuram Grampanchayat of Mandasa Mandal, Srikakulam District by paying the regular salaries together with arrears, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K SRINIVAS

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP)

¶24

/ )

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: SRI M.S.R.CHANDRA MURTHY, SPL C FOR NREGS

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI K.K.DURGA PRASAD

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

rAPHC010028662019

¶29

0=

¶30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶31

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶32

[3396]

¶33

MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶34

PRESENT

¶35

the honourable dr justice VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶36

WRIT PETITION NO: 1309 OF 2019

¶37

Between:

¶38

K.Someswara Rao ...PETITIONER

¶39

AND

¶40

The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶42

-I.KSRINIVAS

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 SPL C FOR NREGS(M S R CHANDRA MURTHY) 2 K K DURGA PRASAD 3.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP)

¶44

The Court made the following: ORDERl:

¶45

The instant Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

¶46

to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents ip not incorporating the name of the petitioner to system attached to the l\jational Rural Employment Guaranteed Scheme of the 4^^ respondent on the representation dated 30.01.2019 is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consogjjently direct the respondents 4 and 5

¶47

'-c

¶48

to permit the petitioner to attend to his regular duties as a Field Assistant of Haripuram Grampanchayat of Mandasa Mandat, Srikakulam District by paying the regular salaries together with arrears”.

¶49

Heard Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a Field Assistant on 10.03.2017. Earlier, one Field Assistant by name Ms.P. Mohini was terminated. The petitioner could not get his salary, since the name of earlier Field Assistant Ms.P. Mohini was not deleted in the system. The petitioner has made several representations to the respondents to consider his request by incorporating his name in the system, in the place of Ms. P. Mohini and permit him to attend the regular^duties.

¶51

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4 would submit that they have filed counter to the effect that Ms. P. Mohini could not reach the labour target at 75% as per norms and that she was removed. Thereafter, she has filed W.P.No.46841 of 2018, which was disposed of, directing the respondents to reinstate the said Ms. P. Mohini in the service vide order dated 26.12.2018.

¶52

Learned Standing Counsel would submit that in obedience to the orders passed by this Court, the said Ms. P. Mohini was reappointed as Field Assistant. The petitioner was never appointed as Field Assistant and finally prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶53

Considering the submissions made, since the claim of the petitioner is that after removal of Ms. P. Mohini, he was appointed as Field Assistant on temporary basis and he has worked. The petitioner made several representations to the respondent No.5 seeking request to pay his salary. 7. In that view, it is apposite to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondent No.4 to consider the representations of the petitioner, according to governing rules and law and pass appropriate orders within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶54