Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Duvva Satyanarayana Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Home
Andhra Pradesh HC
2026
Duvva Satyanarayana Vs the State of ApDuvva Satyanarayana v. the State of Ap

Dismissed¶36

Duvva Satyanarayana v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Jul 2026WP/9131/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APHC010177662023 / WRIT PETITION NO: 9131/2023, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, decided 07.07.2026 by Justice Balaji Medamalli. Petitioner Duvva Satyanarayana, NMR (Mazdoor)/daily wage employee in ITDA, K.R.Puram, Buttaigudem (erstwhile West Godavari district, presently Eluru), sought continuance in service till age 62 after oral directions of respondents 5-7 stopped him from duty from 16-03-2023 on attaining superannuation age 60 pursuant to Cir. Memo No.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23.09.2022; alleged violation of Articles 14, 21 and 309; referenced order in W.P.No.31714/2022 dated 28-09-2022; interim reinstatement order dated 13.04.2023 not complied with. Dismissed as infructuous on petitioner attaining 62 years; no costs. Keywords: NMR Mazdoor, daily wage employee, superannuation age 60 vs 62, ITDA tribal welfare, infructuous writ petition, Article 226 Andhra Pradesh.

What did the court decide?

Since the petitioner has attained the age of 62 years and the interim order dated 13.04.2023 was not complied with (with no contempt proceedings initiated), nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition and the matter has become infructuous. ¶35

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the respondents in not continuing the petitioner as an NMR (Mazdoor) in the ITDA, K.R.Puram, Buttaigudem, under the Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Kota Ramachandrapuram, until he attains the age of 62 years, is illegal and arbitrary. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner has attained the age of 62 years and the interim order dated 13.04.2023 was not complied with (with no contempt proceedings initiated), nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition and the matter has become infructuous.

Key takeaways

Recording the counsel's submission, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Single Judge, Balaji Medamalli, J.), W.P. No. 9131/2023, decided 07.07.2026 (non-reportable): A daily-wage NMR (Mazdoor) of ITDA, K.R.Puram, Buttaigudem, under the Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Kota Ramachandrapuram, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus to continue him in service up to 62 years, having been stopped from duty from 16-03-2023 on attaining the superannuation age of 60 in pursuance of Cir. Memo No.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23.09.2022, alleging illegality, arbitrariness and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 309, and reliance on an earlier order in W.P.No.31714/2022 dated 28-09-2022. An interim order dated 13.04.2023 had directed reinstatement and continuance till 62 years, but it was not complied with and no contempt proceedings were pursued. By the date of hearing the petitioner had attained 62 years; the Court, recording counsel's submission that nothing survived for adjudication, dismissed the writ petition as infructuous with no order as to costs, and directed that pending miscellaneous applications stand closed. The legality of the impugned action was not adjudicated.

A

Date of reserved for orders :----Date of pronouncement :07.07.2026 Date of uploading :

APHC010177662023

[3573]

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

TUESDAY, THE 7^th DAY OF JULY 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 9131/2023

Between:

DUVVA SATYANARAYANA, S/O NARASAYYA, AGED 60 YEARS, WORKED AS(MAZDOOR) NMR, IN ITDA, K.R.PURAM, BUTTAIGUDEM, (ERSTWHILE WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT), UNDER THE EXECUTIVE EINGINEER, TRIBAL WELFARE, KOTA RAMACHANDRAPURAM, RIO 2-6-15, UDARA VARI STREET, OPP. PADMA THEATER, JAGAREDDIGUDEM MANDAL, (ERSTWHILE WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT), PRESENTLY ELURU DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY IT'S THE SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, FINANCE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, TULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, TULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, TULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

THE DIRECTOR OF TRIBLE WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MOGALARAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT.

THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, TRIALWELFARE DEPARTMENT, MUALIFARCHUNE ROAD, OPP.KARACHIBEKARI, VIJAYAWADA,

N.T.R. DISTRICT.

THE PROJECT OFFICER, ITDA, KOTA RAMCHANDRAPURAM, BUTTAIGUDEM, (ERSTWHILE WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT), PRESENTLY ELURU DISTRICT.

THE EXECUTIVE EINGNEER, TRIBAL WELFARE, KOTA RAMACHANDRAPURAM, (ERSTWHILE WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT) PRESENTLY ELURU DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 topleased to issue a writ order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th to 7thRespondents in not continue the Petitioner as (Mazdoor) NMR, in the office of the 7th respondent as Daily Wage Employee in the ITDA who is the 5th to 7th respondents up to the Age of 62 years by setting the directions orally not attending dutie from 16-03-2023 onwards attaining the age of Superannuation i.e., 60 years as on 16-03-2023 in purusaunce of the Cir. Memo No.1813129/FIN01- HR/212/2022-HR-IV, dated 23.09.2022, issued by the 1st Respondent, being illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 and 309 of the Constitution of India, contrary to the Order of this in W.P.No.31714/2022 dated 28-09-2022 and consequently direct the Respondents to continue the petitioner as Driver in ITDA under the 5th to 7th respondents till he attains the age of 62 years, by setting aside oral directions of the 5th to 7th respondents in not allowing the Petitioner as (Mazdoor) NMR, in the office of the 7th respondent as Daily Wage Employee in the ITDA who are the 5th to 7th respondents up to the Age of 62 years, in purusaunce of the Cir. Memo No.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV, dated 23.09.2022, issued by the 1st Respondent and pass

IA NO: 1 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 pleased to direct the the age of 62 years in his post (Mazdoor) NMR by paying monthly salary in purusaunce of the Cir. Memo No.1813129/FIN01-11R/212/2022-HR-IV, dated 23.09.2022, issued by the 1St Respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.G SIMHADRI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

2.GP FOR SERVICES II

The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

WRIT PETITION NO: 9131/2023

ORDER:

The writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not continuing the petitioner as an NMR (Mazdoor) in the ITDA, K.R.Puram, Buttaigudem, (Erstwhile West Godavari District), under the Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Kota Ramachandrapuram, until he attains age of 62 years, as illegal and arbitrary.

Heard Sri G.Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Varun Shyam Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, though this Court, by an interim order dated 13.04.2023, directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and continue him in service until he attained the age of 62 years, the said interim order was not complied with. The petitioner also did not take any steps to initiate contempt proceedings. In the meantime, the petitioner has attained the age of 62 years. As such, nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition, and the matter has become infructuous.

Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

Dt.07.07.2026 JLV

Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/ No / Reasoned Yes/ No Reportable Yes/ No / Non-Reportable Yes /No

99

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

WRIT PETITION NO: 9131/2023

Dt.07.07.2026

JLV

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the action of the respondents in not continuing the petitioner as an NMR (Mazdoor) in the ITDA, K.R.Puram, Buttaigudem, under the Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Kota Ramachandrapuram, until he attains the age of 62 years, is illegal and arbitrary.¶33
2.
Whether anything survives for adjudication in the writ petition, given that the petitioner has attained the age of 62 years during pendency and the interim order dated 13.04.2023 was not complied with.¶35
The court held
Since the petitioner has attained the age of 62 years and the interim order dated 13.04.2023 was not complied with (with no contempt proceedings initiated), nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition and the matter has become infructuous.ratio¶35

Statutes considered

5 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶21 Article 14¶21 Article 21¶21 Article 309¶21
Code of Civil ProcedureSection 151¶23

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Oral directions of respondents 5 to 7 stopping the petitioner, an NMR (Mazdoor)/daily wage employee in ITDA under the Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Kota Ramachandrapuram, from attending duties from 16-03-2023 on his attaining superannuation age of 60, in pursuance of Cir. Memo No.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23.09.2022 issued by the 1st respondent.¶21
Office of the Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Kota Ramachandrapuram (7th respondent) / ITDA, K.R.Puram, Buttaigudem · 16-03-2023
Prior proceeding
By interim order dated 13.04.2023 this Court had directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and continue him in service until he attained the age of 62 years; the order was not complied with and the petitioner did not initiate contempt proceedings.¶35
Prior proceeding
The prayer alleges the impugned action is contrary to an earlier order of this Court in W.P.No.31714/2022 dated 28-09-2022.¶21

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
DUVVA SATYANARAYANA, S/O NARASAYYA, AGED 60 YEARS, WORKED AS (MAZDOOR) NMR, IN ITDA, K.R.PURAM, BUTTAIGUDEM¶9
G SIMHADRI
respondent
THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT (1ST RESPONDENT)¶12
GP FOR SERVICES I, GP FOR SERVICES II, Varun Shyam Kumar
respondent
THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT (2ND RESPONDENT)¶13
GP FOR SERVICES I, GP FOR SERVICES II, Varun Shyam Kumar
respondent
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT (3RD RESPONDENT)¶14
GP FOR SERVICES I, GP FOR SERVICES II, Varun Shyam Kumar
respondent
THE DIRECTOR OF TRIBLE WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (4TH RESPONDENT)¶15
GP FOR SERVICES I, GP FOR SERVICES II, Varun Shyam Kumar
respondent
THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, TRIALWELFARE DEPARTMENT (5TH RESPONDENT)¶16
GP FOR SERVICES I, GP FOR SERVICES II, Varun Shyam Kumar
respondent
THE PROJECT OFFICER, ITDA, KOTA RAMCHANDRAPURAM, BUTTAIGUDEM (6TH RESPONDENT)¶18
GP FOR SERVICES I, GP FOR SERVICES II, Varun Shyam Kumar
respondent
THE EXECUTIVE EINGNEER, TRIBAL WELFARE, KOTA RAMACHANDRAPURAM (7TH RESPONDENT)¶19
GP FOR SERVICES I, GP FOR SERVICES II, Varun Shyam Kumar

Coram

AI extract

JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLIauthor¶7

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Andhra Pradesh HC
Decided on: 6 Jul 2026 · July
Registered: 12 Apr 2023
Case no.: WP/9131/2023
CNR: APHC010177662023
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Balaji Medamalli
Disposal: DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS
Case type: WRIT PETITION

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Balaji Medamalli

Sk Kaifatulla Rabbani Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh
5 Jul 2026
Gadiyamula Srihari Babu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh
5 Jul 2026
Simhadri Krishna Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
5 Jul 2026
Vemuru Sudhakar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
6 Jul 2026
Bhumireddy Ramamohan Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh
6 Jul 2026
Henry Kumar Vs the State of Ap
6 Jul 2026

Cite this judgement

Duvva Satyanarayana v. the State of Ap, WP/9131/2023 (AP), decided on 6 July 2026.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes5

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226 · Article 14 · Article 21 · Article 309
Code of Civil ProcedureSection 151

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Oral directions of respondents 5 to 7 stopping the petitioner, an NMR (Mazdoor)/daily wage employee in ITDA under the Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Kota Ramachandrapuram, from attending duties from 16-03-2023 on his attaining superannuation age of 60, in pursuance of Cir. Memo No.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23.09.2022 issued by the 1st respondent.Office of the Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Kota Ramachandrapuram (7th respondent) / ITDA, K.R.Puram, Buttaigudem · 16-03-2023
By interim order dated 13.04.2023 this Court had directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and continue him in service until he attained the age of 62 years; the order was not complied with and the petitioner did not initiate contempt proceedings.
The prayer alleges the impugned action is contrary to an earlier order of this Court in W.P.No.31714/2022 dated 28-09-2022.

View full history

Bench / Coram

JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

Parties & counsel