Disposed¶31

Ch.Venkata Ramanaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Apr 2025WP/14324/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Medical retirement; retirement on medical grounds; APSRTC employee; Conductor; Record Tracer; alternative post; Section 20(4) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016; Articles 14, 21 and 226 Constitution of India; writ of Mandamus; disposal recording medical examination and appointment as Record Tracer; no order as to costs; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; WRIT PETITION NO: 14324/2018; decided 03.04.2025 by Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief by way of final mandate; the Court disposed of the writ petition recording that, pursuant to its earlier order, the petitioner was sent to medical examination and appointed as Record Tracer, with no order as to costs. ¶31

Ch.Venkata Ramanaiah Vs State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the office order No.E2/756(2)/2018-PDL dated 29.03.2018 retiring the petitioner from service on medical grounds with effect from 13.03.2018 is unjust, arbitrary, contrary to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and discriminatory in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, so as to be set aside. +1 more

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Recording the submissions that, as ordered by this Court, the petitioner was sent to medical examination and thereafter appointed as Record Tracer, the Court considered that no further orders are required in the matter; the issues raised in the petition were not adjudicated on merits.

¶30

Key takeaways

The Writ Petition is disposed of with no order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), single Judge (Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa). Writ Petition No. 14324/2018 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Ch.venkata Ramanaiah challenging office order No.E2/756(2)/2018-PDL dated 29.03.2018 retiring him from service on medical grounds with effect from 13.03.2018 as unjust, arbitrary, contrary to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and discriminatory in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to direct provision of a suitable alternative post of Record Tracer under Section 20(4) of that Act, protecting his Conductor pay scale with consequential benefits including interregnum salary. During pendency, pursuant to the Court's order, the petitioner was sent to medical examination and appointed as Record Tracer. Learned counsel on both sides submitted that the petition may be disposed of recording the same. Holding that no further orders were required, the Court disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs and closed pending miscellaneous petitions, if any. The validity of the medical retirement order was not adjudicated on merits.

¶1

¶2

APHC010313412018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3396]

¶6

THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 14324/2018

Between:

Ch.venkata Ramanaiah

...PETITIONER

AND

State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶17

1.A G SATYANARAYANA RAO

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶19

1.SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

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

¶23

the following prayer:

¶24

“…..to issue an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the office order No.E2/756(2)/2018-PDL dated 29.03.2018 retiring the petitioner from service on medical grounds with effect from 13.03.2018, is unjust, arbitrary, contrary to the Rights of persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, discriminatory in violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to provide suitable alternative post of Record Tracer to the petitioner as per Section 20 (4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,2016, duly protecting the pay scale of the post of Conductor with all

¶25

¶26

consequential service benefits including payment of salary for the interregnum period, in the interest of justice and fair play and pass such other order or orders……”

¶27

Heard Sri A.G.Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, appearing for the respondents 2 to 6.

¶28

Learned Standing Counsel would submit that as ordered by this Court, the petitioner was sent to medical examination and thereafter the petitioner was appointed as Record Tracer. The petition may be disposed of recording the same.

¶29