Disposed

Duba Venkata Ramana v. The District Collector/District Programme Coordinator

Telangana HC11 Nov 2011WP/29959/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition concerning alleged illegal termination from an NREGS Technical Assistant post, the High Court directed the 6th respondent to consider the pending appeal and pass appropriate orders within two weeks without expressing an opinion on the merits of the termination or quashing the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 6th respondent to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within two weeks; high court disposed of the writ petition.

Duba Venkata Ramana Vs The District… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

W.P. No.29959 of 2011

¶6

Between:

¶7

Duba Venkata Ramana … Petitioner And

¶8

District Collector/District Programme Coordinator, NREGS, Srikakulam District and others.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶11

W.P. No.29959 of 2011

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the order dated 23.04.2011, issued by the 3^rd respondent, as being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, without jurisdiction, contrary to principles of natural justice and also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the guidelines and provisions of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme Act, 2005 and the scheme framed there under and consequently set aside the same.

¶14

The case of the petitioner is that the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) is implemented in Srikakulam District as a policy of the Government. The scheme requires the services of Technical Assistants besides the services of Field Assistants etc. After undergoing standard selection process by the 4^th respondent, entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 01.04.2008 for a period of two years and as per the said agreement, he as to report to the 5^th respondent. Pursuant to the said agreement, the petitioner reported to the 5^th respondent and worked as a Technical Assistant from 01.04.2008 onwards.

¶15

While so, the 3^rd respondent vide proceedings dated 25.10.2010 kept the petitioner out of contract employment and asked him to submit explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his

¶16

explanation on 12.11.2010 and thereafter,

¶17

the 3^rd respondent issued order dated 23.04.2011 whereby and whereunder terminated the services of the petitioner.

¶18

It is also submitted that aggrieved by the said order, he filed an appeal before the 6^th respondent on 03.06.2011 and the same is pending.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without conducting any enquiry into the matter on the ground of alleged misappropriation of funds, the 3^rd respondent terminated the services of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 6^th respondent and no orders have been passed thereon. Therefore, he sought a direction to the

¶20

6^th respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner.

¶21

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the 6^th respondent may be directed to consider the appeal dated 03.06.2011, stated to have been filed by the petitioner before the 6^th respondent.

¶22

In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the 6^th respondent is directed to consider the appeal dated 03.06.2011, stated to have been filed before him by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

_________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶25

Date: 09.11.2011 LSK

Duba Venkata Ramana v. The District Collector/District Programme Coordinator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Duba Venkata Ramana v. The District Collector/District Programme Coordinator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D. Srinivasa Rao Vs Apsrtc, Rep by its Vc and MD

J.Bhaskar, Vs Apsrtc, Rep.by its Managing Director

M.I. Baig Vs Apsrtc, Rep by its Managing Director

B. Srinu, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corp Limited

Keluth Dasma Vs The a.P.Power Generation Corporation Limited

R. Srinivas Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc, Secunderabad Division