SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3768

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
D RAMESH
R MUNIRAJULU – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF AP – Respondent
WP 29881/2024



APHC010570792024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3208]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 29881/2024 Between:

1. R .MUNIRAJULU, S/O RAJAGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 51 YRS, WORKING AS OFFICE SUBORDINATE, R/O 14-809, GOOLINGSPET, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (HI) DEPARTMENT. SECRETARIATE, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIATE, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

3. T HE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORIES AND FOOD (HEALTH), THIVEDULA ENCLAVE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

4. T HE ASST FOOD CONTROLLER AND DESIGNATED OFFICER, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR 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 to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner though the petitioner is working in the post of Office Subordinate since May 2013 and earlier as Sweeper cum Scavenger in the office of 4th respondent since more than 33 years in total without any break in service by considering the representation of the petitioner dt.29-04-2024 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminative and against statutory provisions and against Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to regular the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.03.1991 or May 2013 as Office Subordinate or in any suitable post with all consequential and attendant benefits along with continuity of service and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dt.29-04-2024 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 grant leave to the Respondents to file Counter Affidavit Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. P V KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES IV

2. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order i to declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner though the petitioner is working in the post of Office Subordinate since May 2013 and earlier as Sweeper cum Scavenger in the office of 4th respondent since more than 33 years in total without any break in service by considering the representation of the petitioner dt.29-04-2024 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminative and against statutory provisions and against Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to regular the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.03.1991 or May 2013 as Office Subordinate or in any suitable post with all consequential and attendant benefits along with continuity of service and pass….”

2. Heard Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.

3. As per the averments made in the affidavit, it clearly discloses that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1991 as part time worker and the petitioner has continued in the said post. But based on the request made by the peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top