Thottaramudi Ananda Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

*

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY 0^^}
>
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE (
PI

¶4

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K,MANMADHA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION MO: 6064 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Thottaramudi Ananda Rao, S/o Yesuratnam, aged about 28 years Occ Plumber-cum-Electrical, R/o D,No.5-33, Near Panchayati, K-Peddapudi' East Godavari District, A.P, ’ ...Petitioner

¶8

AND

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Educational Department, A.P, Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati Guntur District.

¶10

The District Coordinator, A.f^. Social Welfare Residential, Educational Institutions Society, Human Resource Management System (HRMS) Kakinada, East Godavari District.

¶11

The Secretary, A.P., Educational Institutions Society, Human Resource Management System (HRMS), Tadepally, Guntur District,^A.P.

¶12

The Principal, A.P. Social Welfare Residential, Educational School/Jr. College, Razoie, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

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 particularly the respondent issued the Impugned Removal Order dated 28.04.2019 to the petitioner by the 4*''' respondent without following the due process of Saw clear violation of Principles of Natural Justice, is highly iilegai, arbitrary and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution of

¶15

India, set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to

¶16

,4^ .suspend the Impugned Removal Order dated 28.04.2019 issued the 4*^" respondent by continue petitioner's service as Plumber-cum-Elect rician in the Human Resource Management System (FIRMS), A.P.^{SocialWelfare} Residential Educational School/Jr. College Razole, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶18

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 suspend the Impugned Removal Order dated 28.04.2019 issued the 4*'^ respondent by continue petitioner's service as Plumber-cum-Electrician in the Human Resource Management System (FIRMS), A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational School/Jr. College, Razole, Kakinada, East Godavari District spending disposal of the writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KRISHIMA RAO MODHALAVALASA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: GP IFOR EDUCATION

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI L.V.S. NAGAIRAJU

¶22

SC for APREIS

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI G SIMHADFd

¶24

The Court made the following order:

¶25

n

¶26

APHC010100282020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3310] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO: 6064/2020

¶31

Between:

¶32

...PETITIONER Thottaramudi Ananda Rao,

¶33

AND

¶34

...RESPONDENT{S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶36

KRISHNA RAO MODHALAVALASA

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶38

L V S NAGARAJU (SC FOR APREIS)

¶39

2.GP FOR EDUCATION (AP)

¶40

3.G SIMHADRI

¶41

The Court made the following:

¶42

ORDER:

¶43

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226^{oftheConstitutionofIndia}

¶44

for the following relief:

¶45

“ to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more^{particularlyoneinthenatureof} Writ of Mandamus deciaring the action of the respondents particularly the 4th J the Impugned Removal Order dated 28 04 2019 to the petitioner^{bythe4threspondentwithout} following the due process of law clear violation of^{PrinciplesofNaturalJusticeishighly.Mega} arbitrary and violation of Principles of Natural Justice^{andaisoinviolationofArticles141621of} the Constitution of india set aside the same and consequentiy^{directtherespondentstosuspend} the Impugned Removal Order dated 28 04 2019 issued the^{4threspondenthVcontinuepetitioners} service as PlumbercumEiectrician in the Human Resource^{ManagementSystemFIRMSAP}

¶46

Social Welfare Residential Educational School/Jr College Razole Kakinada East Godavari District and pass...”

¶47

The grievance of the petitioner is that he has passed^{ITIElectricalunder} the government of ITI, the 4‘^ respondent appointed^{asPlumber-cum-Electrician} in the year 2015 and let them continue the Human Resource Management System (HRMS), Kakinada, Razole, East Godavari District. The 4*'^ respondent for monthly remuneration of Rs.2000/- paid to the petitioner without complaint anybody in the petitioner's superiors and all other colleagues and discharging my duties. The 4*^ respondent without issuing any notice, and without given any explanation through directly removed from Human Resource Management System (HRMS) of the petitioner is clear violation. Since 2015 to 28.04.2019 the petitioner discharged his duties for monthly remuneration of Rs.2000/-without complaint against the 4*'' respondent, it is further stated that The 1®* respondent^{hasissuedtheG.O.Ms.No.} 151, dated 08.08.2016 and another G.O.Ms.No.94, GAD the issued respectively dated 28.3.2003. The petitioner has also brought to the notice of the^4th respondent and the 2nd and 3rd respondents whereby granting minimum pay scales of equal pay or equal work, either contract employee or outsourcing employee will be entitled for the minimum pay scale. Though the petitioner made a representation to the respondents concerned, but there is no response^fromthe officials till now. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is^filed,

¶48

Heard Sri Krishna Rao Modhalavalasa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶49

On hearing the submissions, this Court without touching the merits of the case, is inclined to dispose of the present writ petition, at the stage of admission with the consent of both the learned counsels.

¶50

Accordingly, the Writ Petition i - IS disposed of. The respondents concerned are directed to consider the representation dated 17.02.2020 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, i in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶51