Allowed

Shaik Khajapeer v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Sept 2026WP/26537/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, appointed on compassionate grounds and later demoted, was subsequently reinstated and promoted to Senior Accountant in 2026. He challenged the failure of authorities to fix his seniority notionally from 2018, as his juniors had been promoted in the interim. The State undertook to examine his representation. The Court disposed of the petition directing the respondents to fix his seniority from the date his juniors were promoted and to consider him for further promotion, within four months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to fix petitioner's seniority as Senior Accountant from the date his juniors were promoted and consider him for further promotion within four months.

Shaik Khajapeer Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading :

¶2

APHC010479092026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3460] AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 26537/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

SHAIK KHAJAPEER, S/O LATE IQBAL JANI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D. NO. 19/14, RAJAJI ROAD, PRODDATUR TOWN, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT - 516360, WORKING AS SENIOR ACCOUNTANT IN SUBTREASURY OFFICE, MYDUKUR.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI-522237.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES AND ACCOUNTS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522503.

¶14

THE DISTRICT TREASURY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KADAPA (FORMERLY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DISTRICT TREASURY, KADAPA), YSR KADAPA DISTRICT- 516061.

¶15

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 toissue a direction, or an order, or a counsel SYED KALEEMULLA (21404), writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent No.3 in fixing the seniority of the petitionerin the cadre of Senior Accountant on notional basis as on 01.09.2018 for the panel year 2018-2019 in terms of Sub-Rule (c) of Rule 33 of the A.P. Subordinate Services Rules, 1996, G.O.Ms. No. 354, General Administration (Services.A) Department, dated 11.05.1990, and G.O. Ms. No. 172, Finance (Admn.l) Department, dated 01.07.2022, and to direct the Respondent No.3 to fix the seniority of the petitioner in terms of the above provision of law and Government Orders before releasing the Final Seniority List for the purpose of Presidential Order, 2025

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶19

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 direct the Respondent No.3 to fix the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Senior Accountant on the notional basis as on 01.09.2018 for the panel year 2018- 2019 pending disposal of the main writ petition

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.KALEEMULLA S

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

¶26

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶27

W.P.No.26537 of 2026

¶28

O R DE R:

¶29

This writ petition is filed questioning the inaction of Respondent No.3 in fixing the seniority of the Petitioner in the cadre of Senior Accountant on notional basis with effect from 01.09.2018 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶30

Petitioner was appointed as Junior Accountant on Compassionate Medical grounds, on certain conditions, as the mother of the Petitioner was medically invalidated. As the Petitioner could not fulfil the said conditions within the time specified, the appointment of the Petitioner as Junior Accountant was annulled and the Petitioner was posted in the lower post of Shroff vide proceedings R.C.No.A1/141/2013, dated 01.07.2020. Questioning the same, Petitioner filed W.P.No.12939 of 2020 and the same was dismissed on 28.10.2022.

¶31

Subsequently, vide review petition I.A.No.1 of 2022, the order was recalled and writ petition was allowed vide order dated 28.03.2024 and was confirmed in W.A.No.951 of 2024. During the pendency of Writ Appeal, Petitioner was promoted as Senior Accountant on 10.04.2026. The grievance of the Petitioner is

¶32

¶33

that on account of demotion orders, the Juniors of the Petitioner were promoted as Senior Accountant and that in that context, the Petitioner submitted representation dated 05.08.2026 for his case to be considered for promotion on par with immediate juniors. As the same is not being considered, this writ petition is filed.

¶34

Learned Government on instructions submits that the representation of the Petitioner would be examined and appropriate decision will be taken in accordance with law.

¶35

Heard Sri Syed Kaleemulla, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I.

¶36

In the light of the submissions, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶37

(i) The Respondents shall examine the representation of the Petitioner and shall fix the seniority of the Petitioner in the cadre of Senior Accountant from the date on which his junior is promoted and thereafter consider the case of Petitioner for further promotion.

¶38

(ii) The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

¶40

(iii) No order as to costs.

¶41

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

¶42

___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶43

Date: 17.09.2026 KLP

Shaik Khajapeer v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Khajapeer v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases