C Nirmala Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶12

SRI KRISHNADEVARAYA UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, SRI KRISHNADEVARAYA UNIVERSITY, SV PURAM ANANTHAPURAMU-515003.

¶13

INTERNAL COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE ICC, REP. BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER, SRI KRISHNADEVARAYA UNIVERSITY, SV PURAM, ANANTHAPURAMU-515003.

¶14

PROF A KRISHNA KUMARI, DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY/ PRESIDING OFFICER, INTERNAL COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE (ICC) SRI KRISHNADEVARAYA UNIVERSITY, SV PURAM, ANANTHAPURAMU-515003.

¶15

PROF G SHOBA LATHA, MEMBER-1, INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE (ICC) DEPARTMENT OF

¶16

2

¶17

MATHEMATICS, SRI KRISHNADEVARAYA UNIVERSITY, SV PURAM ANANTHAPURAMU-515003

¶18

PROF N GEETHANJALI, MEMBER-11 INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE (ICC) DEPT, OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, SRI KRISHNADEVARAYA UNIVERSITY, SV PURAM ANANTHAPURAMU-515003

¶19

SMT P SAILAJA, MEMBER-ILL, INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE (ICC) SRI KRISHNADEVARAYA UNIVERSITY, SV PURAM, ANANTHAPURAMU-515003.

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

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 or any other order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not conducting inquiry basing on the petitioners complaints dated 23.8.2025, 4.9.2025 and 6.10.2025 and in not taking action against the perpetrators of harassment against the petitioner as is contemplated under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 as illegal, contrary to the provisions of the said Act 2013, UGC Regulations 2015 and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 3 to 7 to conduct inquiry on the petitioners complaints and submit its report to the 2nd respondent to initiate further action under Section 13(4) of the Act-2013 within the time frame stipulated under the said special Act and

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶23

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 2 to 4 to grant leave for a period of 3 months as per Section 12(1)(b) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 read with Regulation 8 of the University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and

¶24

3

¶25

Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015, to the petitioner being an aggrieved woman, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶27

1.J UGRANARASIMHA

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.O UDAYA KUMAR SC For S K UNIVERSITY

¶30

2.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶31

The Court made the following:

¶32

4

¶33

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶34

W.P.No.28374 of 2025

¶35

ORDER :

¶36

This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the 3^rd Respondent in not conducting enquiry basing on the Petitioner’s complaints dated 23.08.2025, 04.09.2025 and 06.10.2025 and not taking any action against the perpetrators of harassment against the Petitioner as per the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act’) as illegal and arbitrary.

¶37

2. The Petitioner is working as ‘Sweeper’ in Respondent No.2-

¶38

University and has been discharging duties to the best of her abilities. While so, the Petitioner had filed a complaint on 23.08.2025 regarding the incidents of harassment. However, no action was taken. Though the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) is constituted to examine the complaints on these aspects by Respondent No.2-University vide its circular dated 13.05.2025, the complaints of the Petitioner were not taken into consideration. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶39

Sri O.Uday Kumar, learned standing counsel for Respondent No.2-University, on instructions, submits that the complaints of the

¶40

5

¶41

Petitioner would be placed before the Internal Complaints Committee as constituted vide circular dated 13.05.2025 and further action would be taken in that regard.

¶42

In view of the submission of the learned standing counsel for the Respondent No.2-University that the grievance of the Petitioner would stand redressed, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶43

(i) The Respondent No.2-University is directed to ensure the enquiry on the complaints of the Petitioner in terms of the provisions of the Act and within the time specified therein.

¶44

(ii) No order as to costs.

¶45

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.

¶46

___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶47

Date: 15.10.2025 KLP

C Nirmala v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C Nirmala v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palle Krishna Vs the State of Ap

Gummethala Reddeiah Vs the State of Ap

Elugu Prasad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kothapalli Satya Krupa Vani, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Amrutapudi Sekhar Babu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Totakura Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh