K Bala Subbaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K Bala Subbaiah, s/o Nadipenna, Aged about 49 years, Occ time scale worker. The Kurnool District Milk Producers, Mutually Aided Coop.Union Ltd., Nandyal.

¶10

K.Nagaraju, S/o K.Thippanna, Aged about 42 years, Occ time scale worker. The Vijaya Milk Daily, Kurnool.

¶11

N.Naga Prasad, S/o N.Pedda Pullanna, age 47 years, Occ time scale worker. The Vijaya Milk Daily, Kurnool.

¶12

S.Khalendar, S/o Syed Hussain Basha age 32 years, Occ Consolidate wage worker, Vijaya Milk Daily, Kurnool.

¶13

Galipothu Isaac, Sio Prakash Rao, age 47 years, Occ Skilled worker, Vijaya Milk Dairy, Chagalamarri Village and Mandal, Nandyal (Kurnool) District.

¶14

P.C.Subbarayudu, S/o Panditi Subba Rayudu, age 47 years, Occ Semi skilled worker, Vijaya Milk Diary, Chagalamarri Village^and Mandal, Nandyal (Kurnool) District.

¶15

G.Sekhar, S/o Yesuratnam, age 42 years, Occ Contract worker, Vijaya

¶16

Milk Diary, Nandyal, Nandyal (Kurnool) District.

¶17

R.Ravi Sekhar, S/o Govindu age 30 years, Occ Contract worker, Vijaya Milk Diary, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶18

Galipathu Karunakar, S/o G.Yesuratnam, age 48 years, Occ semi skilled worker, Vijaya Milk Diary, Chagalamarri Village and Mandal, Nandyal (Kurnool) District.

¶19

...Petitioners

¶20

AND

¶21

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶22

The Kurnool District Milk Producers Mutually Aided Cooperative Union Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Nandyal, Nandyal (Kurnool) District.

¶23

The Joint Registrar/District Cooperative Officer Nandyal (Kurnool)

¶24

District at Nandyal.

¶25

...Respondents

¶26

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly^one in the Nature of Writ of MANDAMUS Declare the action of the 2nd respondent in transferring the petitioners under various proceedings vide Rc.No.46/E2/MD/2010, dated 03-11-2022 and 10-11-2022 and consequently removing them from their services w.e.f. 21-12-2022, vide proc.No.105/E2/MD/2022, dated 24-12-2022, is illegal, improper, arbitrary and against the Rules and all canons of justice besides being violative of Articles 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 309 and 311 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioners ini their original places.

¶27

Main Prayer amended/substituted as per Court Order dated 12.08.2025 vide lA No.2 of 2023 in WP No.2036 of 2023.

¶28

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶29

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 to allow the petitioners herein forthwith to their respective duties without insisting to withdraw from the union, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶30

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶31

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, not to create any either temporary or permanent work places without allowing the petitioners from discharging their duties in their respective posts, till the disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶32

lA NO: 2 OF 202^

¶33

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 hear and dispose of W.P. No. 2036 of 2023 with three weeks from today.

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K V RAJENDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 3: GP FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDARY Counsel for the Respondent No.2; SRI GANTA PRASAD The Court made the following order:

¶35

[3460]

¶36

APHC010040912023

¶37

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶38

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶39

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶40

PRESENT

¶41

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶42

WRIT PETITION NO: 2036/2023

¶43

Between:

¶44

1.K BALA SUBBAIAH, S/0 NADIPENNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,^OCC TIME SCALE WORKER, THE KURNOOL DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS, MUTUALLY AIDED COOP.UNION LTD., NANDYAL.

¶45

2.K.NAGARAJU, S/0 K.THIPPANNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,^OCC TIME SCALE WORKER, THE VIJAYA MILK DAILY, KURNOOL.

¶46

3.N.NAGA PRASAD, S/0 N.PEDDA PULLANNA, AGE 47 YEARS,^OCC TIME SCALE WORKER, THE VIJAYA MILK DAILY, KURNOOL.

¶47

4.S.KHALENDAR, S/0 SYED HUSSAIN BASHA, AGE 32 YEARS,^OCC CONSOLIDATE WAGE .WORKER, VIJAYA MILK DAILY, KURNOOL.

¶48

5.GALIPOTHU ISAAC, SIO PRAKASH RAO, AGE 47 YEARS, OCC SKILLED WORKER, VIJAYA MILK DAIRY, CHAGALAMARRI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, NANDYAL (KURNOOL) DISTRICT,

¶49

6.P.C.SUBBARAYUDU, S/0 PANDITI SUBBA RAYUDU, AGE 47 YEARS, OCC SEMI-SKILLED WORKER, VIJAYA MILK DIARY, CHAGALAMARRI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, NANDYAL (KURNOOL) DISTRICT.

¶50

7.G.SEKHAR, S/0 YESURATNAM, AGE 42 YEARS, OCC CONTRACT WORKER, VIJAYA MILK DIARY, NANDYAL, NANDYAL (KURNOOL) DISTRICT.

¶51

8.R.RAVI SEKHAR, S/0 GOVINDU, AGE 30 YEARS, OCC CONTRACT WORKER, VIJAYA MILK DIARY, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶52

2

¶53

9.GALIPATHU KARUNAKAR, S/0 G.YESURATNAM, AGE 48 YEARS, OCC SEMI-SKILLED WORKER, VIJAYA MILK DIARY, CHAGALAMARRI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, NANDYAL (KURNOOL) DISTRICT.

¶54

...PETITIONER(S)

¶55

AND

¶56

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

¶57

2.THE KURNOOL DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE UNION LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NANDYAL, NANDYAL (KURNOOL) DISTRICT.

¶58

3.THE JOINT REGISTRAR/DISTRICT COOPERATIVE OFFICER,

¶59

NANDYAL (KURNOOL) DISTRICT AT NANDYAL.

¶60

...RESPONDENT{S):

¶61

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the Nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in asking the petitioners not to attend for duties who are working since more than 15-20 years, as they started the Trade Union in the Kurnool District Dairy Milk Corporation Ltd., and not for any other reason.‘ - is illegal, improper, arbitrary and against all canons of justice besides being violative of Articles 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 309 and 311 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioners herein to their respective duties without insisting to withdraw from the union and pass such other order.

¶62

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶63

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 to allow the petitioners herein forthwith to their respective duties without insisting to withdraw from the union, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass such other order.

T

3

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

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 permit the petitioners to amend the main prayer in WP.No.2036 of 2023, as; Declare the action of the 2nd respondent in transferring the petitioners under various proceedings vide Rc.No.46/E2/MD/ 2010, dated 03-11-2022 and 10-11-2022 and consequently removing them from their services w.e.f. 21-12-’2022, vide proc.No.105/E2/MD/2022, dated 24.12-2022, is illegal, improper, arbitrary and against the Rules and all canons of justice besides being violative of Articles 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 309 & 311 of Constitution^of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioners in their original places, Instead of "declaring the action of the respondents in asking the petitioners not to attend for duties, who are working since more than 15-20 years, as they^{startedtheTrade} Union in the Kurnool District Dairy Milk Corporation Ltd., and not for any other reason, is illegal, improper, arbitrary and against all canons of justice besides being violative of Articles 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 309 & 311 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents^toallowthe petitioners herein to their respective dudes without insisting to withdraw from the union" and pass such other order.

¶68

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶69

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 2'^'^ respondent, not to create any either temporary or permanent work places without allowing the petitioners from discharging their duties in their respective posts, till the disposal of the above Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 hear and dispose of W.P. No.2036 of 2023^with three weeks from today.

¶70

4

¶71

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶72

1.KVRAJENDRA PRASAD

¶73

Counsel for the Respondent{S):

¶74

1.GP FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDARY

¶75

2.GANTA PRASAD

¶76

The Court made the following:

¶77

4

¶78

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶79

WRIT PETITION No.2036 of 2023

¶80

ORDER:

¶81

The Writ Petition was originally filed questioning the action of Respondent No.2 in not permitting the Petitioners from attending the duties even though they are working since more than 15 to 20 years on the ground that they had started a Trade Union in Kurnool District Dairy Milk Corporation Ltd.,

¶82

During pendency of Writ Petition, a show-cause notice^wasissuedto the Petitioners on 15.12.2022 and pursuant thereto the impugned orders of termination were passed individually against the Petitioners.^{ThePetitioners} are described as Time Scale Workers, Consolidated Wage Workers, Semiskilled Workers and Contract Workers in Respondent No.2-Society.

¶83

This Court on hearing the counsel for the Petitioners expressed a doubt regarding the maintainability of Writ Petition, as the Respondent No.2Society cannot be termed to be ‘State’ under Article¹² of the Constitution of India.

¶84

The learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2-Society would submit that Respondent No.2 is a Mutually Aided Cooperative Union Limited and the State’ has no administrative or financial control over the affairs of Respondent No.2-Society.

¶85

2

¶86

Therefore, firstly on the ground that Respondent No.2-Society^isnota ‘State’ the Writ Petition cannot be maintained. Apart from that, show-cause notices and termination orders were issued separately^{tothePetitionerand} the cause of action is independent for each of Petitioner has to file separate case. The Writ Petitioner therefore suffers from mis-joinder of cause of action.

¶87

Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the Petitioners to agitate their claim before the appropriate Court. Considering that the Petitioners had bonafidely pursued this Writ Petition, the time spent before this Court, shall be excluded, while calculating the limitation, if any, while approaching the concerned Court. The Petitioners are also granted time of three (3) months from today to approach the concerned^Court.

¶88